You can read the full transcript, which includes references, here.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

You can read the full transcript, which includes references, here.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Sources

·      The top 3 reasons New Year's resolutions fail and how yours can succeed (Caprino, 2019);

·      A psychotherapist says there are 3 common reasons so many people's New Year's resolutions end in failure (Abadi, 2019);

·      10 Reasons Why New Year's Resolutions Fail (Wallen, 2020);

·      The Transtheoretical Model of Change Prochaska & DiClemente (1983)

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Sun: “Elon Musk vs Mark Zuckerberg fight updates”

Sportsmanor: “Elon Musk vs Mark Zuckerberg – Height and Weight Differences Between the Two Rivals”

Journal Article: “Precarious Manhood and Its Links to Action and Aggression”

Pubity: “Zuckerberg Withdraws from Fight with Musk”

Music

* Opening: “Chilled Ambient Minimal”

* Closing: “Unexpected" - David Bulla

Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this discussion, Dr Bekah Shallcross joins me in a rambling conversation that covers the nuances of what boundaries are, what they are not, how boundaries are upheld and agreed to between men and women In a patriarchal society, and what can be done to change this.

As always, please get in touch to let me or Dr Shallcross know your thoughts. And if you think anyone would benefit from hearing this episode, please do share it with them. Also, if you could leave a rating or a comment to let others know this show isn’t a bag of shite, that would be wonderful too.

All the best,

Nice-ish.

Music

* Opening: “Chilled Ambient Minimal”

* Closing: “Seven” - Tobu

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dr Martha and I discuss the prevalence of shame discussion on social media, the purposes of shame, how it helps to shape social connections and behaviours, and how it can potentially be a force for good for social change.

As always, it was a thoroughly enjoyable and through-provoking discussion and hopefully, it is for you too. If you enjoyed the episode, please do share it widely on social media (tag me in it if you do), or with someone close to you who you think might enjoy it (or benefit from it).

And if you can, please leave a rating or comment. It all goes towards letting others know how good (or totally shit) this podcast is.

Thanks as always,

Nice-ish.

Resources

* Why Shame Is Good

* Why Shame and Guilt Are Functional For Mental Health

* The Positive Side of Shame

* Is Shame Necessary?: New Uses for an Old Tool

Music

* Opening: “Chilled Ambient Minimal”

* Closing: “Unexpected" - David Bulla

Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As always, if you liked this episode and think that someone else may benefit from hearing it, please do share. And if you have the time, please leave a rating and a comment (if you can). It does go a long way to let others know if the show is helpful or a bag of shit.

All the best,

Nice-ish.

Music

* Opening: “Chilled Ambient Minimal”

* Closing: “Unexpected" - David Bulla

Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For those of you who don’t know, I am a Clinical and Forensic Psychologist, and in my actual life outside of this social media world, I sometimes get asked what kind of work I do with those in the forensic population. And how I go about trying to help these individuals turn things around for themselves. Not going to lie, it’s quite a hard question to answer. Mostly because it’s not straightforward. I mean, it’s relatively straightforward in my head, but that’s because I know what I’m doing (allegedly).

But the full answer is quite lengthy. So, I thought it could make for a good podcast episode. And so here we are, to think about how prison rehabilitation work ideally. I say ideally because human beings are complex and not straightforward. And even though we can theorise how best to help and work with individuals in the forensic population, it’s not straightforward. We’ll explore some of those reasons as we go along.

But before we get into it, as always, if at the end of this episode, you think “Bloody hell that was interesting, I bet all my friends and family would enjoy hearing this,” then please do share this episode with them. And if you could rate or leave a comment, too, that would be very much appreciated. I must admit, I found this an interesting episode to make, so hopefully you find it interesting, too. Also, I would say that if there is anything that piques your interest further and you want to know more about, do get in touch, and ask a question. I might be able to answer it then and there, or I might do a further podcast episode about it.

Now that that’s out the way and before we think about what ideal rehabilitation should look like, I thought it might be worth taking a very quick historical trip to learn about how the prison system came about. It’s a summary of three different sources, which I have included in the transcript. So, if you want to know more about something or I don’t cover something in as much detail as you’d like, do look for the relevant hyperlinks in the transcript.

So, not going to lie, the history of the prison system is a long and complex one, with roots dating back to ancient civilisations. From the dungeons of medieval Europe to the modern-day prison industrial complex, how society has dealt with crime and punishment has evolved significantly over time. In the 18th century, however, the concept of imprisonment as a form of punishment became increasingly popular. In an interview about the invention of incarceration, Ashley Rubin, a sociologist specialising in the history of prisons in America noted that there is a difference between the existence of jails and the development of prisons.

Apparently, prisons have not always been used as a punishment or deterrent for criminal behaviour, but rather as a means of keeping the perpetrator of a crime detained until the actual punishment could be carried out. Before the introduction of prisons, people were punished either through capital punishment (what we know as the death penalty and – according to good old Wikipedia – was formerly called judicial homicide”) or corporal punishment. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the sanctions for criminal behaviour were public events that were designed to shame and deter, including the ducking stool (which is a contraption that had a long arm with a seat on the end of it and was used to dunk those convicted of offences into the water and were later used to identify witches), a pillory (which is effectively a stock in which a person’s head and hands were locked in a frame at the end of a long post), whipping, branding, and stocks (which, unlike a pillory, were used to restrain a person’s feet). 

Further along in the interview, in response to a question about people being locked up long before the 18th century, Rubin notes: “Yes, but those were jails, not prisons. There were, for example, workhouses in England and the Netherlands in the 16th century that held a big mix of people, including vagrants, debtors and prostitutes. Even orphans in some cases. People who had done minor things or hadn’t necessarily been convicted of a crime, or were being held awaiting trial, or until they paid a fine or for other administrative purposes. Some scholars have argued that those were the first prisons, but in my view, they were more similar to what we would call a jail today. Jail is basically a short-term holding cell, not a place of punishment, and we’ve had that throughout history.” So, initially, prisons tended to be a place where people were held before their trial or while awaiting punishment. It was very rarely used as a punishment in its own right.

In 1777, John Howard, the first penal reformer, called for reforms to the prison system, which included paid staff, proper diet, and outside inspection (which only goes to show what the conditions of this confinement would have been like before any of these things were implemented). The existing punishments of capital and corporal punishment were deemed inhumane, and they were not seen as effective in deterring crime. This led to a movement to reform the jail system, which was considered terrible, grotesque, and a hot spot for disease. The desire for a new type of punishment and the need to reform the jails paved the way for prisons as we know them.

The first prisons in the world were developed in America. The Massachusetts state prison, which opened in 1785, was the first actual prison, followed by Connecticut in 1790 and Pennsylvania in 1794. In 1791, in the UK, Jeremy Bentham designed the “panopticon” – a prison design that allowed a centrally placed observer to survey all the prisoners, as prison wings radiated out from this central position – which became the model for prison building for the next half-century. If you can’t conceptualise that, I would go have a look at the link, it is quite a fascinating design.

So, in summary, historically the prison system was designed to punish criminals and deter others from committing crimes. But over time, it has become clear that incarceration alone is not enough to prevent individuals from re-offending. This has led to a shift in focus towards rehabilitation and reintegration programs within the prison system. However, the effectiveness of the prison system has been a topic of debate for many years (over 200 years, apparently).

Then, fast forward to America in 1974, when we meet criminologist Robert Martinson who takes it upon himself to review all evaluations of offender treatment programmes available at the time. In summary, this leads him to conclude that “we haven't the faintest idea about how to rehabilitate offenders and reduce recidivism [which in case I have not mentioned it before is a fancy word for re-offending]”, which lead to the now famous question of “Does Nothing Work?” in terms of prisoner rehabilitation. Just to add, the question is famous in Forensic circles. You would be forgiven for not knowing what I am talking about. It’s no “to be or not to be”, and you’re not going to be using it in pub quizzes any time soon.

However, in response to Martinson’s review and despair, a group of Canadian psychologists proceeded to review all the literature available in the 1980s related to offending to then find out “What Works?” From this review, Donald Andrews and James Bonta developed the Psychology of Criminal Conduct (PCC), which has been around for fucking ages and is now in its 6th edition published in 2016.

The PCC highlighted that (surprise, surprise) there were in fact individual factors as to why people offended, which comprised of social, biological, and individual influences. From this, Andrews and Bonta developed the Risk-Need-Responsivity (R-N-R) model, a model of offending that stood in stark contrast to the previous attitudes of correction that relied heavily on punishment (not going to lie, I feel like the prison system is still pretty punitive these days; but anyway, it’s what the literature says...) Seemingly for the first time a model existed that forensic practitioners could use as a framework to understand the causes of criminal behaviour but also aid in reducing re-offending.

The first “R” of the R-N-R model is the risk principle, which has two key components. Firstly, it involves predicting the level of risk posed by those who have committed offences, which is not fortune-telling but is based on a combination of statistical likelihood and structured clinical judgment. To achieve this, a thorough assessment of the offender’s static risk factors (which are historical and unchangeable) and dynamic risk factors (which are potentially changeable) is required. Secondly, the risk principle involves matching the individual to an appropriate level of treatment based on their level of risk. In this way, it is proposed that present as a higher-risk should receive higher-intensity interventions, whereas those who present with a lower-risk should receive less intensive or no intervention (there have also been arguments that even those in the low-risk category should receive intervention regardless of being low-risk). But overall, this approach enables correctional institutions to direct resources to those who pose a greater risk and require a greater level of rehabilitation.

The “N” part of the R-N-R model is the need principle, which is a key factor in reducing reoffending rates through targeted interventions. To achieve this, it is suggested that interventions should focus on the dynamic risk factors, also known as “criminogenic needs.” The reason for the focus on dynamic risk factors is that, as noted above, static risk factors are historical and can’t be changed. An example of a static risk factor is something like a history of violence or previous offending. These are considered risk factors in the sense that often the predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, and if someone has a long history of violent behaviour then there is a higher chance that person may engage in violent behaviour in the future. And a history of violence or previous offending is not something that can be changed or undone. However, static factors aren’t necessarily an absolute guarantee of future behaviour as static risk factors are influenced by dynamic risk factors (or criminogenic needs), which are changeable and can be focused on as an area of intervention. There are eight identified criminogenic needs that include a history of antisocial behaviour (it’s worth noting here that all offending can be considered antisocial behaviour, but that not all antisocial behaviour is offending – just think about people who talk loudly or on their phone when you go to the cinema; it’s certainly antisocial but no one’s going to prison for being a dick while you watch the latest Marvel instalment). Other dynamic risk factors are an antisocial personality pattern, antisocial cognitions and attitudes, antisocial associates, problematic home or work circumstances, having few positive leisure activities, and substance abuse. So, for example, through interventions that challenge attitudes and beliefs that are supportive of criminal behaviour, these attitudes and beliefs can be modified, theoretically then leading to a reduction in re-offending.

The second “R” principle is that of responsivity – or a person’s responsiveness to an intervention – which is a crucial aspect of effective rehabilitative treatments. The idea behind the responsivity principle is that it’s all well and good to identify the level of risk, and what an intervention should target, but if a person is not responsive to treatment, then things are very unlikely to change. The responsivity principle has two main components: the general and the specific components. The general component emphasizes the use of cognitive behavioural approaches to effectively reduce reoffending rates. Basically, this is linked to trying to challenge and modify beliefs and attitudes towards offending. Meanwhile, the specific component considers individual factors that may hinder successful rehabilitation, such as low motivation, personality, and, intellectual ability, and gender (having said that out loud, I am not quite sure why gender is considered an individual factor that might hinder rehabilitation. I might look into that). The theory is, that, that by addressing these individual factors, the responsivity principle increases the likelihood that rehabilitative treatments can be delivered effectively to those who have committed crimes.

That all sounds, lovely right. Think about the level of risk, figure out what dynamic risk factors need to be intervened with, and then think about how to make sure someone can engage with an intervention to address those dynamic risk factors. Pretty cut and dried. Well…

Even though the R-N-R Model is the “gold standard” by which prisoner rehabilitation is conducted (and it certainly has the breadth of empirical evidence to support this claim) the R-N-R model has come under significant criticism in the last 20 years. The primary criticism comes from Tony Ward and Claire Stewart in the early 2000s who note that in practice – so in real world, practical terms – the R-N-R model neglects the responsivity principle. And so, because of this, the R-N-R model runs the risk of reducing someone who has offended to a set of risk factors without any sense that those individuals are human beings that have basic needs that they were possibly trying to meet through their offending behaviour. From this, they developed the Good Lives Model (although, when looking at the Good Lives website, I think it was Tony Ward’s brainchild).

So, as human beings, we all have basic needs, and we all go about achieving these needs in different ways. The GLM describes eleven “goods” that we seek to achieve/obtain throughout our lives in order to live “a good life”. These are as follows: life (wanting to live a “good life” which includes healthy living and functioning); knowledge (wanting to know more about the world); excellence in work (being good at /having a job); excellence in play (having leisure time); excellence in agency (having choice about what we do, having autonomy, power, and self-directedness); inner peace (being content and free from emotional turmoil); relatedness (having good relationships, both intimate and non-intimate); community (feeling a part of/connected to something); spirituality (either through religion or spiritual connectedness and having meaning and purpose in life); pleasure (which means feeling good in the here and the now); and creativity (being able to express oneself). It has been conceptualised that “criminogenic needs” serve as indicators that an offender has had difficulty in seeking these human “goods” and has gone about trying to achieve/obtain these goods through antisocial means, either through lack of life skills (which may not have been acquired for a variety of reason) or challenging life circumstances.

An example I like to use to illustrate this is that of a parent stealing nappies for their young child because they can’t afford to buy them. You could view the parent as having antisocial tendencies and a lack of regard for the rules of society. Or, you could understand that this parent, given their financial constraints and potential limitations in being able to acquire nappies in a prosocial way, was pursuing the “good” of “life” in that they were trying to provide their child with a basic, functional need that every parent strives to fulfil for their children. While both choices are criminal, the second framing humanises the parent as someone doing the best they can within the limitations of their circumstances, and what that parent needs are opportunities to do what they need to for their children in a way that does not involve offending. Now, I can appreciate that this is perhaps an easy example to digest as the circumstances can convey a certain level of sympathy and possibly empathy. Something that might not be possible for you, good listener, to do for those who have committed crimes along the higher end of severity and harm. And that’s OK – that’s why there are folks like me doing the job we do so that you don’t have to.

The main claim behind the (GLM) is that to simply focus treatment on “criminogenic need” is to suggest that there is something wrong with a person who has committed an offence and that a more humanistic approach would be to find out what these individuals need to live a different, more prosocial life. Therefore, by finding out what “goods” a person was trying to obtain through their offending and framing. these are treatment needs, or approach goals (i.e., how best to achieve their goals), which may serve to motivate them to engage in rehabilitative strategies more effectively.

So, in summary, in forensic settings if we can a) work out the kind of “goods” a person was trying to obtain at the time of their offending, b) find out why that “good” is important to them, c) help them learn more prosocial/healthy/helpful ways of obtaining that good in the future we will then be able to reduce that person’s risk of trying to obtain those “goods” through antisocial means in the future (i.e., reduce risk of reoffending). Of course, in reality, things don't work out so neatly, and this is not to say that if a person’s goods are identified and addressed then things just fall neatly into place. There is a lot of work that goes into rehabilitation and a lot of barriers which can impede rehabilitation. But the GLM offers a framework to follow and offers a principle that positions those who have committed offences as human beings who have committed offences for specific reasons that relate to things that a non-offending population – so people like you and me – also strive for.

And there we go. That’s it for today’s episode. Hopefully, it has been informative in some way and has given you something to think about. As I have noted throughout, this is just a theoretical underpinning, but often times things are not as clear-cut as I have outlined here. But this is the framework that should underpin rehabilitation in forensic settings. Whether that is or isn’t done is beyond my capacity to know.

Like I said earlier, if you liked this episode, please rate, share, and leave a comment if you can. It all goes towards letting others know if this is a good show or a bag of shite. 

As always, thanks for your time.

And I hope you have a good day. Or not. No pressure. 

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

EDITING ERROR: There is a part in the introduction where I had to put a new word in - and it sounds ridiculous… I am sorry about that. I meant to say “people have confused what I do with what a psychiatrist does” but ended up saying “what a psychotherapist does”, so needed to replace that word. Doh!

Nice-ish.

Music

* Opening: “Chilled Ambient Minimal”

* Closing: “Unexpected" - David Bulla

Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It was an insightful and fun chat to have, and I am always grateful to have Dan and Calum share their insights with me. Hopefully this is something you learn from, too.

As always, please come share your thoughts on the episode if you have any. And, if you like it, please give me a follow or a rating on whatever platform you listen to your podcasts on. And f you think anyone else may benefit from hearing the episode, please do share it with them.

All the best and thanks for listening.

Nice-ish.

Music

* Opening: “Chilled Ambient Minimal”

* Closing: “Seven” - Tobu

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

So, initially I wanted to focus on the differences between psychiatrists, psychologists, psychotherapists, and counsellors. For two reasons. Firstly, I am forever bemused by the number of times someone asks me – as a psychologist – if I can prescribe medication (and right at the start I want to clarify that I cannot); and I think this is because sometimes people confuse what I do with what a psychiatrist does. So, I thought it might be helpful to clarify that. And secondly, there have been times when even I am like, well, what is the difference between what I do versus what a psychotherapist does versus what a counsellor does. And I figured that if I sometimes find myself asking these questions, then it’s possible that members of the general public must be asking these questions, too. 

So, that was going to be the initial podcast. However, when I shared a blurb of this episode on social media (you know, to generate that ever important hype) several followers got in touch to request that their professions be also be acknowledged within the realm of mental health professionals. Which I think is fair.  

And so, along with wanting to discuss the differences between psychiatrists, psychologists, psychotherapists, and counsellors, I was also going touch on mental health nursing, occupational therapy, and social work within the realms of the mental health field; additionally, under the section on psychologists I was also going to include the other sub-roles within psychology (like trainee and assistant psychologists). Then, while researching and writing this episode, all of that started to get too big, too long, and too in-depth. And seeing as I had already missed a podcast deadline last week, I decided rather than half-arsing the whole thing, it would make sense to split the episode into two parts. With this first part focusing on the professions that I would consider focus on psychiatric care. This distinction is pretty arbitrary and stems mostly from my experiences of working in psychiatric inpatient settings. For this reason, I am going to spend some time talking you through the roles of psychiatrists, mental health nurses and support workers, occupational therapists, and social workers within the field of mental health. And in the next episode I will focus more on what could be considered the “talking therapies”; namely, psychology, psychotherapy and counselling. 

It might be worth noting that while I’ve put these episodes together because I thought it might be helpful for the general public to have an overview of some of the professions involved in the field of mental health in the UK, this is exactly that: an overview. The information I have put into this episode was gathered from as many sources as I could find relating to the numerous professions discussed; but I am conscious that I might not capture all the specifics of the professions quite right. Therefore, if there are any mistakes – or for any listeners who may be part of some of the professions listed, if I do not get the nuances of your job quite right – I am sorry. 

Anyway, on with the show… 

First off, we’ll start with psychiatrists, mostly because this is the profession which is most unlike that of a psychologist, psychotherapist, or counsellor (as far as I can tell anyway and is one of the main reasons why I started writing this podcast episode). So, according to the NHS website, “psychiatry is a medical field concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mental health conditions” and “a doctor who works in psychiatry is called a psychiatrist.” Psychiatrists are medical doctors who specialise in the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental illness and emotional disorders.  

According to the website of the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP, the medical body responsible for regulating and supporting psychiatrists throughout their career) a psychiatrist will have spent five to six years training to be a doctor. They will then have worked as a doctor in general medicine and surgery for at least a year, before then undertaking at least six years of further training in helping people with psychological problems. So, all in all, it takes about 12 to 13 years for a psychiatrist to get to the very end of their training.  

Now, I am aware that there are different levels of doctoring. For example, before you become a consultant, there are six different levels of being a junior doctor, such as FY1 and FY2 (which are known as foundation year doctors), moving up to speciality trainee (or ST) doctors, which I think is where doctors start to specialise in different areas of medicine such as psychiatry. The specifics of progressing through the junior doctor level up to consultant are beyond the scope of my understanding, but the end result is that if someone is a consultant psychiatrist, they have pretty been doing the gig for at least a decade. 

Because of this, psychiatrists have a range of specialist skills when it comes to mental health. For example, and according to the RCP website, psychiatrists can assess a person’s mental state, diagnose mental illness, and prescribe a range of medications to manage symptoms of mental illness. At this point, I am aware that some listeners might have strong views of psychiatrists and the prescribing of psychiatric medications. Or the idea of diagnosis in general. Indeed, if anyone has read up about the Power Threat Meaning Framework, it’s possible you may disagree with diagnosis and medication altogether. This is something that I would like to address and talk about in another episode in the future – but if you have any views of queries about this particular area let me know. Also, if you haven’t heard of the Power Threat Meaning Framework, have a read of it. 

Right, back to psychiatrists. So, on top of these “core skills” as it were, psychiatrists will develop skills in working with specific difficulties that affect specific populations. For example, the skills and knowledge needed to work within general adult mental health will differ to those needed to work with children, and again will differ when working with a forensic population. Additionally, and whilst this is not necessarily typical (as far as I am aware, and I am always open to being wrong) some psychiatrists will train to become a psychotherapist, too; and as part of their psychiatric practice will offer therapy. This is something we I will focus on a bit more in the next episode when we look at psychotherapy. 

Psychiatrists will often work in mental health settings such as community mental health centres or psychiatric hospitals, and they will often work with a breadth of other mental health disciplines such as mental health nurses and support workers (otherwise known as healthcare assistants), occupational therapists, and social workers. All of which we will now look at (and this is why I have included these professions within the distinction of those who work in psychiatric care). 

Registered mental health nurses (RMNs) and support workers (also known as health care assistants or HCAs) are nursing staff who provide the day-to-day care to those experiencing mental illness either in hospital or in the community. They may work across various settings within hospitals such as psychiatric wards, outpatient clinics, psychiatric intensive care units, or specialist units such as eating disorders units or forensic psychiatric hospitals. In the community you may find nursing staff in GPs, prisons, community mental health centres, residential care, or even visiting clients in their home. 

RMNs jobs and responsibilities are different from those of HCAs. RMNs will ensure that the psychiatric treatment plan outlined by the psychiatrists is carried out. They will write care plans, administer medications, monitor health conditions, take charge of shifts (especially in psychiatric wards), oversee the maintenance of notes, and make sure the legal documentation required to detain someone in hospital is above board (by this I mean paperwork required to section individuals under the Mental Health Act). HCAs duties are related to assisting the RMNs in carrying out their duties and there is some overlap. The main difference being that that nurses usually have overall responsibility and accountability for making sure that the things needed to be done in relation to patient care get done. In the UK, RMNs are regulated by the NMC, the Nursing and Midwifery Council. 

So, HCAs may assist with doing the hourly observations of their service users, assist with escorting them on their leave, assisting with meals, and along with the nursing staff ensuring that the day-to-day care for those within hospital or psychiatric settings are carried out. Some further examples listed on a job application website note that HCAs are responsible for supervising service users to make sure they are safe. Now, safety could relate to safety to the service users themselves or safety from others, and health care assistants may, in collaboration with registered nursing staff, make day-to-day or moment-to-moment risk assessments to help make sure that service users do things safely or that they aren’t endangering themselves or others, which can happen. 

HCAs also give practical support to service users and their families, such as with household tasks, personal care or managing their money and financial paperwork. And it is not uncommon for HCAs to provide emotional support and reassurance to service users and their families, and sometimes – again, in conjunction with registered nursing staff – educate service users and their relatives about the sorts of mental health difficulties the service users might have. So that’s nursing staff. 

Another important job that is found within the realm of mental health professionals is that of the occupational therapist (OTs). The Royal College of Occupational Therapists (RCOT) notes that occupational therapy helps individuals live their best life at home at work – and everywhere else. OTs who work in mental health are concerned with helping people who are struggling with their mental health to engage in meaningful activities, which can help to improve their well-being and quality of life. Once more, according to the Royal College of Occupational Therapists, “occupational therapy in mental health is about enabling people to do the activities that matter to them, regardless of their mental health condition”. Some examples of activities that occupational therapists might help people to engage in include self-care tasks (such as washing and dressing), household tasks (such as cooking and cleaning), work-related activities, leisure activities, and social activities. The aim is to help people to develop the skills and confidence they need to manage their mental health condition and live as independently as possible. OTs use a range of different interventions to help people, which can be done on an individual or group basis. 

Some examples of specific interventions that OTs might use include the use of graded exposure, which is an approach that involves gradually exposing people to situations or activities that they find anxiety-provoking, in order to help them to overcome their fears. OTs might provide practical life skills training and support to help people develop skills in areas such as time management, budgeting, and cooking. OTs can assist people who have sensory processing difficulties, which can be a symptom of certain mental health conditions or neurodevelopmental conditions (such as autism, for example). This kind of work would involve assessing what sensory difficulties service users have, and then using sensory experiences (such as touch, movement, and sound, for example) to help people to regulate their emotions and feel calmer and more relaxed. In the UK, OTs who work in mental health are regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC). 

The final role within the sort of psychiatric care side of mental health is that of mental health social workers. Now, unlike the rest of the roles discussed above, it a was a little more challenging to pin down the specifics of the social worker role in within mental health services. And so, this section is made up from some bits that I sourced from seemingly relevant webpages about social work within mental health, while some bits are from what I remember during my training. 

So, according to the global definition of social work provided by the International Federation of Social Workers, social work is a practise-based profession and an academic discipline that promotes social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people. Principles of social justice, human rights, collective responsibility, and respect for diversity are central to social work.  

In relation to mental health specifically, and according to a document written by the College of Social Work in 2014, social workers have a “crucial part to play in improving mental health services and mental health outcomes for citizens”. Social workers are trained to work in partnership with people using services, their families and carers, to optimise involvement and collaborative solutions (so, making sure that the voice and needs of psychiatric service users are heard and respected and advocated for). It the document also notes that “social workers...manage some of the most challenging and complex risks for individuals and society and take decisions with and on behalf of people within complicated legal frameworks, balancing and protecting the rights of different parties. The NHS website also goes on to say that as part of their job roles, social workers protect vulnerable people from harm or abuse. And I guess this in one of my main anecdotal understandings of the roles of social workers within the mental health field, is that they were really good at holding in mind the rights and privileges of those who were receiving psychiatric care. They were also a vital link, particularly in impatient settings, between service users and their families. I am pretty sure there are lots of things that mental health social workers do that I have not captured here. But, if you would like to hear more about this role (or any of the roles discussed in fact), then let me know and I can try see if anyone would like to come on and talk about their job in a bit more detail. 

Now, before I end, I’m not quite able to do justice – with words – to the job that these professions do within psychiatric care. I am aware that there are criticisms that people have of psychiatric services, and it is not my place to change your views about that. But what I will say, from both my time as an HCA on psychiatric wards and through numerous inpatient placements while completing my doctoral training, the work these professionals do is tough. They are really tough and demanding job that I think often go unrecognised and underappreciated when thinking about mental health professionals. So, with that in mind, I hope this has been a helpful episode. Additionally, whenever I’ve referred to websites or documents I've read, you can always go and check them out within the transcript I’ve written to this episode (and most of my other episodes, in fact). I always put hyperlinks in the relevant sections where I talk about references. So, if I said something that piques interest please do go back and have a look through the transcripts and you will find what I'm talking about linked there. 

And finally, if you have got to the end of this episode and you think, “fucking hell, that was some interesting shit” why not give it a rating, share it, or recommend it to your friends. It’s always appreciated. And as always, please do come say hi on my Instagram page. Let me know your thoughts, good or bad. I am always happy to talk further about these things. So, until next time. Hope you have a great day. Or not. No pressure! 

Music

* Opening: “Chilled Ambient Minimal”

* Closing: “Seven” - Tobu

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

So, I guess this particular episode begins a bit further back than the last few weeks, because while reflecting on this episode I remembered listening to an amazing audiobook version of My Child and other Mistakes, written by comedian Ellie Taylor. My partner had read the book and recommended it to me because, in her words: “She [Ellie Taylor] has the same view of parenting as you do, so you might appreciate it.” And she wasn’t wrong. My Child and other Mistakes is what I would call a very realistic parenting guide. As well as being funny, it highlights a rather brutal reality of parenting that is perhaps left out of the usual narrative of having children and becoming a parent; which in a nutshell is that parenting is usually this magical, wonderful, time where you help small human beings that you created with your partner, grow and develop, and it’s all cute and sweet and fun… which, for some it is. But for others, like Ellie Taylor and myself, it’s not necessarily our reality. I won’t spoil the book, but for anyone who, like me, has asked themselves what they fuck is going on in terms of being a parent, then My Child and other Mistakes is an utterly validating book.

Having said that, while I connected with a lot of what Ellie Taylor wrote about, there was obviously a lot I could not connect with. One of the more obviously aspects is the fact that Ellie Taylor is a biological female and much of her parenting experience involved all the ups and down that go hand-in-hand with being the person who grows and then gives birth to a child. Which I, being a biological male, can’t - and therefore did not - have that experience and therefore could not relate to. All of that was fine. The thing that did really hit me in the face, though, was when Ellie Taylor talked about the support she received as a mother. Especially when she talked about social media groups that she was a part of with other new mothers, which is something recommended by antenatal classes as a way to maintain a support network in the early years of parenting. When my partner and I joined one such antenatal group, a group was set up for the mothers by the mothers and one was set up for the father by the fathers (it was called, “DadsDadsDads”, which I must admit is a great name). The thing is, and this is what was reflected in Ellie Taylor’s book, is that my partner is still connected to some of our original antenatal group through social media , while I on occasion will wave to one of the fathers from that group if I see him locally and perhaps have a brief “How’s life?” chat in the local Tesco car park if we happen to be leaving and arriving at the same time (which has happened once or twice).

In the early months and years, my partner was connected to the other mothers, seeking and giving advice, sharing stories, getting and sharing milestone updates, being invited to birthday parties and all that jazz; while we fathers maybe met up once or twice for a curry and a beer, and pretty much kept making promises to see more of each other, all of which has fizzled out. And I couldn’t even tell you if anyone is still in that social media group because I have not received a message in it for years and I have also not bothered to check it. And I didn’t really mind this at the time, because I didn’t see them as a support network. I am not particularly proud of this, but I saw these people - these other men - as random strangers that although I had a shared experience with did not necessarily want to be friends with because I likely would not have chosen to be their friends, or made plans to go out with them socially, if we hadn’t all been having children within the same six month window. Additionally, although I have loads of male friends, I have always found making friends with other men a bit awkward. Men like to talk about sport a lot and I do not like talking about sport at all. A very grand generalisation, but something I have experienced a fair bit in my life. And it’s not just sports-talk that has generally put me off making friends with men. That’s rooted in historical experiences or going to an all-boys school and the less than pleasant way in which boys can relate to each other.

However, fast forward another year or so and I am listening to Ellie Taylor’s book, and I am connecting with her struggles and feeling fully validated by the conflicting feelings that can come with being a parent, which can flick from full-on undiluted love and adoration to near blinding rage in what seems like an instant. And I’m thinking, “Finally, someone gets it, and someone is putting how I feel into words and fuck does it feel good to be acknowledged.” And then she goes on to talk about how she managed to get through a lot of what she experienced through sharing her struggles with other mothers that were going through it too. And I felt a gut-punch. I remember sitting in that same Tesco car park where I on occasion had passing commentary exchanges with one of the dads from my antenatal class and feeling like such a twat. Because I has had a similar opportunity to have a support base, and I had essentially rejected the idea, based on a silly notion of not wanting to have to make friends with other men I did not know. And since then, had pretty much felt like I was the only person struggling in the way that I was.

OK, that sounds slightly dramatic, and is not quite true because my partner and I have had many conversations about my struggles as a parent, and we have often had conversation about how I have a view that some people are just more naturally inclined towards being parents (which is the camp I believe my partner falls into), and then there are others – like me – who I think struggle more and for whom parenting maybe doesn’t come quite as naturally. I know this is a very broad and simplistic view of things, but I have had a few conversations with other parents about this and, although not robust enough to stand up to academic scrutiny, the theory seems to be shared by them too. But despite being able to talk to my partner about my struggles with parenting, and the fact that my brother-in-law is also a father, I still felt quite isolated as a father. Now, for me, my circumstances are pretty unique in that I live quite far away from my own family and that my friendship network is scattered not only across the county, but also across the world. So, while I do have male friends and a loving and supportive family, they are not very local. But I am also not one to help myself, because, along with not wanting to make friends with antenatal dads as mentioned earlier, I believe I am of an age where I just can’t be arsed to make new friends – and, as a parent who struggles with parenting – I don’t really have a lot of energy to want to socialise with new people anyway. So, I haven’t done myself any favours.

However, despite my own circumstances, research suggests that it is not uncommon for new fathers to feel isolated. The Movember Foundation – a charity aimed at improving awareness, research, and funding for mental physical and mental health for men, commissioned a piece of research published in 2019 called “Fatherhood and Social Connections”. The research was based on a survey conducted on 4,000 men between the ages of 18 to 75 from the UK, the USA, Canada and Australia (so, 1,000 men per country), 45% of whom were fathers. The survey found the following data. 23% of men stated that they felt isolated when they first became a father, leading them to conclude that becoming a father can be an isolating experience. Interestingly, and sadly, 20% of fathers reported that the number of close friends they had decreased in the 12 months after becoming a father. Which, if you think about the first statistic, may contribute to why fatherhood could be an isolating experience. Which, again, if you think about it, makes sense. If you are someone that doesn’t have kids, and your mate now has a kid, there is a high probability that the new father might spend a lot of time talking about their kid – I know this is a generalisation, but still. And people who don’t have kids don’t really get – or necessarily care, for understandable reasons – why people talk about their kids as much as they do. And maybe it’s just me, but I tend to talk about my kids a lot – both about the good and the tough stuff. But that’s because at this point in my life they are pretty much occupying all of my time. Which is another reason why friendships might fade. It would make sense that in terms of going out and socialising that there might be less times for new fathers to go out and socialise with their friends. Especially within the first few years of a child’s life. Then if someone has more than on child that gets extended for another few years. And it’s very possible that friends might then give up asking new dads to socialise, cos what’s the point, right? So, it would make sense that some new fathers might feel their friendship group diminish over time.

Something else to think about is that the Movember research found that men and fathers don’t always recognise the importance of friendships. When asked to list three important aspects of their lives, less than a fifth of men (18% to be exact) listed having close friends as important. And coupled with this it was noted that over half of the men survey (51%) reported that even if they were satisfied with the quality of their friendships, they felt they could not talk to their friends about their problems. Then potentially linked to that, it was reported that fathers without close friends reported that their stress levels increased a lot. Which is significant, because in general 70% of men reported that their stress level increased a lot within the first 12 months of becoming a father. The report also goes on to highlight that in general, 1 in 10 new fathers experience depression after the birth of their child, and that fathers with perinatal mental health problems are 47 times more likely to be considered a risk of suicide than at any other point in their lives. All of which is important to note, because there is tonnes of literature out there to support the fact that a person’s psychological well-being is determined by the quality of their social connections and that having mutually supportive friendships can serve as a protective factor against anxiety and depression.

So, as you can see, my feelings of isolation, while specific to my own context and situation, is not something uncommon amongst new fathers. And clearly social connection is important. None of which I knew or thought about when I was rejecting the notion of getting to know the dads from my antenatal class. Something that I first came to regret when listening to Ellie Taylor talk about how helpful social connection was in her book, and the importance of which has become more abundantly clean more recently.

And yes, I was very much a psychologist at this time in my life and I still managed to have this blind spot.

The back story to this epiphany happened a few weeks ago at a soft play birthday party. Yes, a soft play birthday party. One of those surreal arenas of organised chaos where you kind of get to relax because your kids are in an enclosed area with padded climbing frames and slides, where theoretically they should be able to knacker themselves out with their friends, but there is the slim chance (as is with me) that your kids might come crying to you because they have somehow managed to injure themselves (or someone else) with over enthusiastic playing.

The birthday party was for an old nursery school friend, and I was there with my partner. A few other dads who I knew from the nursery school days had come with their wives and partners, too. And we got to chatting a bit as we sometimes do, which I always found awkward for the reasons already listed above. But these guys are always nice and I like being polite. So there we were. When all of a sudden, one of them turns to me and says “We were planning on going for a beer on Wednesday night. Do you fancy a pint?” And I was a little stumped for words. I had never been asked this in a soft play. On a Sunday. And it had been a long, looong, time since I had been asked out for a cheeky beverage on a weekday… a fucking weekday. At 8 o’clock on a weekday. Usually at 8 o’clock on a weekday I am recovering from bath and bed time on the sofa and then I myself am off to bed by about 9:30.

It took me a while to answer, because while my partner and I aren’t massively sociable at this time of our lives, there are occasions when will have some fries or family over. Or my partner might go to a yoga class. So, I mentally checked out calendar for the week, and after a bit of an awkward pause – which could have been construed as me looking for a reason to say no – I agreed.

And I’m not going to lie, because of all the reasons listed earlier in this episode, I was pretty apprehensive about it. Mostly about the 8 o’clock start time. Come the Wednesday night after my partner and I had done the bedtime routine I complained that I had to now go out and have a beer. Socially. With people I don’t know that well! Anyway, I got over that, hopped into the car and went to go meet these men. And do you know what – it was great. It really was.

Firstly, it was one of the most validating experiences I have had as a father in a long time. As you might have gathered, parenthood has been a bit of a struggle for me, and due to not really being around any other fathers I felt that I was the only one struggling in the way that I was. Now, I guess you might be wondering if there haven’t been any other parents around that I could have spoken to and who could have validated my experiences? And you would not be wrong – however, they were mostly mothers and those who had given birth to their children. I can’t say for definite, but I think it is a very different experience being the non-birthing parent – in this case a father. There is a whole host of research that focuses on the experiences that occur between a child and a mother or birthing parent, like the focus on attachment and the importance of this. While I am unaware of there being as much of a focus on non-birthing parents and what that’s like. And while the overall experience of parenting can be very similar for both the birthing and non-birthing parents, there are subtle and quite powerful differences that have, in my experience, the capacity to shape how one feels as a parent.

One of these experiences was shared with this new dad crew of mine, and that is the idea of what I call being the “bad parent”. Now there’s possibly a lot of attachment stuff that could relate to this, but from a parental perspective and trying not to think about with too much of a psychological mind, what I mean by the “bad parent” is the one who is not able to offer support or comfort to a child when they are distressed. And that child only being soothed or comforted by the other parent, who for the sake of this experience could be thought of as the “good parent”. Again, from an attachment perspective it makes sense that children are more likely to be comforted by one particular parent – in my case it is my partner, a mother. And while I don’t definitely know this for a fact, I would argue that it is the mother or the birthing parent that is more often than not in the position to comfort and sooth. Now, while I can appreciate that this might be a burden in some way, it can challenge the non-birthing parent’s perception of themselves as a “good parent”, or a competent parent. Or a parent that is loved by their child. Now, I know that cognitively I can tell myself that I am loved by my children as much as they love my partner, but it does take its toll to be screamed at and told to go away and that they only want mommy when they are upset. It can make you feel pretty crap and make you judge yourself as shit, incompetent, and useless.

But, low and behold, I was not the only father to experience this amongst my new posse of dad pals. And that felt like such a relief. I was also relieved to find out that I was not the only one that shared the view or felt like they were not a natural parent. One dad described it as having to “work hard every day to be a good parent”.

It wasn’t just the similarities that were validating, but the differences, too. There were stories, which I won’t share here as they are of a more private nature, that highlighted that while I thought my life had been massively impacted by becoming a parent, others’ lives were impacted in other ways, and in some instances in more challenging ways that I could not imagine for myself and my family. But I also learned that my child was not the only one potentially experiencing bullying, or falling out with friends, or getting into relationships. I know it sounds really stupid to say it out loud, but it was just so bizarre to find out how much I had in common with these men and that I was not, as it were, the only father going through some seriously confusing, challenging, and tiring shit with trying to raise children. I was not alone in my struggles. And that was, I am not going to lie, such a weight of my shoulder.

And so, to conclude, this one experience of going out with other dads has taught me that dads definitely need dad friends. It’s validating. It’s cathartic. It’s makes you feel less alone. And, if you are like me, you might find another dad that is even more grumpy than you are.

And just to end. While I know this episode is about dads needing dad friends, it is clear that social connections and good quality friends are super important for fathers, especially new ones. Therefore, at the same time it makes sense for fathers to have friends who aren’t parents, because actually it is probably very helpful for parents and fathers to go out and do stuff and talk about stuff that doesn’t relate to being a parent. So, I guess, again while this is about dads needing dad friends, maybe this podcast is also for men who may have friends who are fathers, or who are soon to be fathers, or who may one day be fathers – even if you don’t have kids of our own, your friendship and connection will be really valuable and helpful to you dad friend.

Anyway, that’s it from me for now. As I said at the start, if you found any value in this episode of know of anyone who may benefit from it, please share it with them. As always, the invitation is there for you to come find me on social media and say hello. You know where to find me by now, I’m sure.

As always, hope you have a great day. Or not. No pressure.

Music

* Opening: “Chilled Ambient Minimal”

* Closing: “Seven” - Tobu

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Music

* Opening: “Chilled Ambient Minimal”

* Closing: “Enexpected" - David Bulla

Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

If you found this episode helpful, useful, or not a complete waste of time, please consider sharing it with someone else. Please also consider rating it, following the show, or where possible leaving a comment. It all helps others decide if my show is a a bag of shit or not.

Thanks as always. And hope you have a great day! (Or not, no pressure!)

Resources

DBT Skills: Checking the Facts Worksheet

Check the Facts Example (YouTube) - Lewis Psychology

Music

* Opening: “Chilled Ambient Minimal”

* Closing: “Unexpected” - David Bulla

Thank you for subscribing. Share this episode.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I speak to Calum about some of these things, but more interestingly (at least to me) I discuss what impact hosting the podcast has had on him.

I really enjoyed having Calum on and enjoyed exploring his insight and developments with him. Hopefully you enjoy it, too.

As always, if you did like this, please share it with others, rate and subscribe to the podcast, or leave a review. Every bit of feedback helps.

Have a great day (or don’t, no pressure!)

Nice-ish.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Well, in this episode I am once more joined by Health Psychologist, Jo Rodriguez (otherwise known as @straightforwardpsychology) to discuss what being trauma-informed actually means, how that might apply in social media spaces, and (most importantly) what it is not.

I always enjoy chatting to Jo and value her insights and experience (and her love of f-bombs). Hopefully you enjoy hearing us waffle on (constructively). If you have any thoughts, questions, or challenges to what we have to say, please let us know.

As always, if you liked the episode and think someone else might like it, too, please share. Also subscribe, rate, and leave a comment - it always helps to let others know how good (or bad) the podcast is.

All the best,

Nice-ish.

Resources

* (Mis)understanding trauma-informed approaches in mental health by Angela Sweeney (2018).

* Trauma-informed mental healthcare in the UK by Sweeney, Clement, Filson, & Kennedy (2016).

Music

* Opening: “Chilled Ambient Minimal”

* Closing: “Seven” - Tobu

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Alex works with and has a passion for men’s well-being, so he was a natural choice in broaching this subject. As always, Alex’s research and insights into masculinity and manhood does not disappoint and provides a solid basis for what I feel is an in-depth and nuanced discussion around this issue. Hopefully you think so, too (and let me and Alex know what you do think - even if you think anything we say is far off the mark).

If, after listening, you think that someone else would benefit from hearing this discussion, please share it with them. Also, please do like, subscribe and leave a comment (if you listen on Apple Podcasts - I mean, you could always leave a comment there even if you don’t. Unless you have an Android phone, in which case none of this applies to you!)

Thanks for listening, your patience with putting up with my continued bullshit and letting me fill up your inbox is greatly appreciated.

All the best,

Nice-ish.

Music:

* Ending: “Unexpected” by David Bulla (NCS Release)

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hopefully it provides some food for thought. It might not be the perfect answer, but as always, the aim of what I talk about is to generate some wider perspective thinking. If you have any thoughts you would like to share or some views you would like to challenge, please feel free to get in touch.

If you think anyone else would enjoy hearing about this, please do like, share, and leave a comment. It is all greatly appreciated.

Thanks again.

Nice-ish.

Resources:

* “Aggression and Violence: Definitions and Distinctions”; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323784533_Aggression_and_Violence_Definitions_and_Distinctions

* “Reactive and Proactive Aggression among Children and Adolescents: A Latent Profile Analysis and Latent Transition Analysis” https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9067/9/11/1733/pdf

* “Appetitive aggression”: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327231548_Appetitive_aggression

* “Are humans evil?”

* “Is Humankind Inherently Selfish? Reconsidering the Veneer Theory in Humanities”: https://martinschmidtinasia.wordpress.com/2020/12/18/is-humankind-inherently-selfish-reconsidering-the-veneer-theory-in-humanities-i-in-action/

* “Humankind” by Rutger Bregman

* “The Myth of Normal” by Gabor Mate

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The statement about there being no funding for men’s mental health and that no one cares about men’s mental health struck me as odd, so I put a question about this to my followers to get a wider perspective of views. These were essentially broken down into two camps – some noted that there were internal barriers to men seeking help for their mental health while the other noted more external barriers. The internal barriers were discussed in part of one this discussion (which is episode 14 if you want to go and listen), while the external barriers will be discussed here. And hopefully there will be some conclusion as to whether there is a lack of mental health provision for men, and if in fact no-one cares about men’s mental health.

This section, this discussion around external barriers to men seeking mental health support, I found really fascinating – mostly because some of the things discussed from this side of things I had not really considered before, and some I am a bit like, “Yeah, I see where you’re coming from, but you’ve not really convinced me.”

But before I continue, it might be worth noting that this section will contain reference to the categories of primary, secondary, and tertiary healthcare. And seeing as I, someone who works in NHS healthcare, have not always understood the difference between the three I thought it might be helpful to quickly explain the differences. According to the Mind Charity website, primary healthcare is often the first point of contact when someone has any healthcare needs. This is covered by professions like GPs, dentists, and pharmacists. Secondary healthcare are services which will generally require referrals from a GP. In terms of mental health services, this would be things like psychiatric hospitals, psychological wellbeing services (such as IAPT services – which stands for Improving Access to Psychological Therapies), as well as community mental health teams (CMHTs), and Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment Teams (CRHTs). Tertiary care is healthcare that is considered specialised treatment, and in the case of mental healthcare this would be considered something like secure forensic mental health services. Huh! Turns out I work in tertiary healthcare. Who knew!

Also, this episode is not meant to diminish anyone’s mental health struggle. I am very aware the mental health services in the UK are stretched, underfunded, and generally not accessible for these reasons. There are long waiting lists, burnt out staff, and there remains a general persistence in terms of the stigma and lack of understanding about mental health that generally makes it more difficult for everyone to get the help they need. Also, as I noted in the previous podcast, I am not taking aim at Paddy Pimblett and the intention of his initial messages. In fact, there has recently been something in the news about someone saying that Paddy Pimblett’s words saved his life. Which is amazing. The aim of this podcast, rather, is to look at the accuracy of some statements made, which by and large appear to be an accepted narrative around men’s mental health. So, with that in mind I hope you can listen to to this episode with an open mind.

Anyway, external barriers.

So, one of the areas that I can understand where people are coming from, but I also don’t buy it wholly, is the idea that therapy is “feminised”. Yes, you heard me correctly: therapy is feminised.

The premises of this particular barrier appear to be two-fold. Firstly, therapy and therapists, and in fact the field of mental health and psychology in general, is a female dominated field.  Secondly, alongside this is the idea that most therapies are emotions-focused and require talking about feelings.  Again, these things are not wrong, which is why I can appreciate the idea that therapy is feminised: lots of women in the field and the primary modality of therapy is something that has been classed as feminine – that being talking – and that the main focus is on emotions – again, as aspect of being human that is associated with femininity.

Therefore, the issue that supposedly arises is that men might be less likely to engage with and discuss their difficulties with women. And that talking about their emotions is something men generally struggle with, so a focus on talking about emotions may dissuade them from accessing therapy because supposedly men are more solution-focused and prefer doing rather than talking.

OK, so there are a few things to point out that highlight that this is a somewhat strange, if not flawed argument.

The first thing that I find interesting or wonder about this idea of therapy being considered feminine by virtue of the fact that woman primarily work in this field: does the same concern apply to the area of general healthcare? Is general healthcare considered feminine, too? Because there is a strong gender bias of women working in the caring professions, but I wouldn’t consider general healthcare feminine. I wonder if this is because despite women making up 77% of the NHS workforce they still make up the minority of senior positions, so maybe there is less consideration of general healthcare being thought of as feminine because those in more senior, perhaps more visible positions are men.  But still if the worry is that mental healthcare is female dominant, why does the same worry not exist for general healthcare. Not sure any men are refusing to go to the general hospital because there are too many female NHS staff there.

Perhaps it does have to do with the fact that most senior positions are filled by men. So, by that logic you would imagine that if more visible positions within general healthcare are filled by men, that on the whole men would be OK with visiting primary healthcare services like a GP, which up until 2017 was primarily dominated by men. (Some of you may be interested to know in that year in the UK 54% of GPs were women). However, that’s not the case – in an article by The Guardian written in 2102 (so five years before women occupied just over half of all GP positions) men were still only likely to visit the GP four times a year, while women would visit their GP on average six times a year (so, 50 percent more). Similarly, men were likely to visit a pharmacy four times a year compared to women’s average of 18 times a year. The same article highlighted that nine in ten men did not want to trouble a doctor or pharmacist unless they had a serious problem, leading the article to conclude that “men aren’t taking full advantage of the support to maintain good health which is available free of charge on their doorstep.”

Also, I don’t know about you, but I only really realised how female dominated the field of psychology and mental health was once I entered it. I might be wrong, and being an imperfect human there is usually a high chance that I am wrong about this, but I think the predominant perceived gender of therapists and psychologists is still largely masculine and male, based on those who are considered to have pioneered the development of psychology. Like Freud, Jung, Beck, Rogers, and so on and so forth. I am not sure that the average Joe would know that most therapists or psychologists are women. In fact, there was an Australian study done in 2003 (which is over 20 years ago, I admit, but the results are still intriguing to me) where adults were asked to draw images of what they thought a typical psychologist looked like. Based on 119 drawings, it was found that psychologists were largely perceived as middle-aged men.

But the shift in psychology becoming female dominated is relatively recent. In a 2011 article examining the shift in gender in psychology (which I won’t lie, if you read the article it feels a bit like a panicked “what are we going to do now that all these females are entering psychology” piece), it was noted that “the percentage of psychology PhDs awarded to men [had] fallen from nearly 70 percent in 1975 to less than 30 percent in 2008.” But whilst this shift might be noticeable to those in the field, I do wonder how much this is picked up on in the general public. But again, I am potentially wrong about that as this shift has been occurring for like the last 20 years. But if anyone wants to do a follow-up to the 2003 Australian study to see if the perception of psychologists and therapist has change, go for it.

Something else that I found interesting was the apparent inference that men would have difficulty opening up to a female therapist. One of the things about the current state of masculine culture is about not looking weak in front of or admitting ones weaknesses to other men. So, the question I ask is would a man feel OK with opening up to another man more than a woman? Because, if we are agreeing with this gendered stereotype of how therapy is viewed, surely if men are looking for someone to listen to them who stereotypically would be able to understand and empathise and would not be judgmental of their experiences would they not want that to be (again, stereotypically) a woman? I mean, this is all rhetorical because while I do believe that the gender of a therapist can influence a therapeutic relationship and has its barriers (as a male psychologist working in a women’s prison I am acutely aware of this particular therapeutic barrier), it can also serve as a facilitator. It’s possible some men might find it tough to talk to a women therapist, equally, some men might find it more reassuring and containing.

And my final thought on therapy being feminised is this: so what? If it is feminised, and it is something that is considered more feminine, why is that so bad? While delving into this topic, there has been a further inference that men are potentially a “hard to reach” target population and therefore therapy and mental health intervention should be tailored to be male-friendly. There is literature out there to suggest that in order to make therapy more accessible to men it should be masculinised. How should this be done? Well, in their textbook Perspectives in Male Psychology , John Barry and Louise Liddon suggest eleven ways in which to make therapy more male friendly; relating to the therapist, the type of therapy, and techniques.

In relation to the therapist, considerations suggested are: being empathetic, client-centred, value masculine norms, utilising a client’s characteristics (the example here is to use sport as a metaphor for recovery if a male client likes sport - which, again, sure but also metaphors are common practice to help clients understand concepts, etc. Also, women understand sport metaphors, too), considering demographics (like age, ethnicity, education level, and the sex of the therapist, which I have touched on already and might be something important to consider.

In relation to the therapy, it is suggested that male’s might prefer an indirect approach (the example given here is that men might try solve a problem rather than want to focus on their emotions), and that all male groups should be offered alongside individual therapy.

While in relation to therapeutic techniques, it is suggested that therapists consider the language they use, might think about using non-verbal communication (like avoiding direct eye contact which could make men feel uncomfortable), and last but not least, therapist should try use banter.

I suppose what’s interesting is that apart from two things mentioned (that being valuing masculine norms and the interesting suggestion to avoid eye contact, which… yeah, not sure what to make of that one), everything else is pretty much exactly the same as how I, and any other therapists I know, would work with clients… While I am not saying that all of this won’t be helpful, my query is why is it necessary, especially when there is loads of research to suggest that the current therapy modalities work for both men and women. In a 2014 editorial review of research looking into the differences in outcome of the treatment of depression between men and women, the editorial concludes that “patient-centered treatment using medication and/or psychotherapy that explores the psychosocial context of depression is likely to give the best chance of patient compliance and satisfaction, regardless of gender.” Basically, if the person seeking therapy is the focus of the intervention and their mental illness is formulated in a way that is specific to that person, and takes into account all the things about that person (one of which can be their gender) then the intervention should work. Therefore, there is no specific need to masculinise therapy because if a man seeks therapy he will already be masculinised by virtue of the fact that the therapist will focus on and deal with things specific to that man and his circumstances.

Okay, so I seem to have said a lot more about therapy being feminised that I intended, my bad. Moving on…

The second external barrier highlighted from my online discussion was that of the responses of services to men who seek mental health support. So, this was one of the more interesting points that I had not considered. In a very brief discussion with one follower – a fellow psychologist in the south of the country – they noted that their community mental health team saw an equal number of men and women referred to the service, but that men were sometimes deemed too risky to work with for reasons of verbal and physical aggression. As a consequence, these men were often signposted to local charities to receive support for their mental health. Which is an interesting response. And it has made me think two things.

The first is the fact that the men who have mental health issues are not the only ones that hold onto ideals of masculinity. It is very possible that those who work in the services that men access may also hold onto those views, as with the example of turning men away because men are automatically assumed to be more violent than women, which may be further exacerbated when coupled with the potential unpredictability of how some men present when mentally unwell (I would like to caveat this by highlighting that not everyone who is mentally ill can become violent or aggressive, but in this instance it seems to be noteworthy).

But at the same time there is also some evidence to the contrary because at the level of CMHT referral and above (so here we are talking about secondary and tertiary mental healthcare) there is a lot more provision for men than women. Let me explain…

So, in general, there are less psychiatric beds for women than there are men. In terms of psychiatric provision, everything is always measured in the number of beds - but across the UK, there are far more psychiatric beds available for men than there are women, and this only gets more concentrated when you move into forensic psychiatry too. I can’t find like an official document that evidences this, but I know from my years working on psychiatric wards this to be the case (at lease anecdotally). Again, someone let me know if I am wrong. Along side this, there is relatively recent literature to suggest that even when admitted to psychiatric services, women’s needs have not been fully met, and here I quote from an executive summary of a 2018 report commissioned by the UK Department of Health and Social Care: “[mental health services] have been designed, whether consciously or unconsciously, around the needs of men.” The executive summary also goes on to say that women’s roles as mother’s and cares were not considered in terms of the support they received, and that the relationship between gender based violence, trauma, and poor mental health was overlooked. At the same time, I would argue that the impact of trauma should be considered in relation to mental illness regardless of gender.

So, there seems to be a bit of a paradox in terms of responses to men by services. On the one hand, services may be influenced in some way by underlying assumptions and biases about men when they are mentally unwell; but at the same time there appears to be lot more resource provision when they do become acutely or chronically unwell and their needs may be more automatically catered for while in these services.

One of the final points that was made in the overall discussion about this was that there was no promotion for men or reaching out to men to access mental health support. As noted earlier, some would consider men a “hard to reach population”. Now, this is somewhat tricky because I would agree and disagree with this: I would argue that some men might be a harder to reach than others, and this would depend on which type of men we are talking about. I would argue that men that fall into any number of intersectional categories could potentially be harder to reach than others.

As part of their effort to try and reduce health inequalities, the NHS has looked into where different health inequalities exist, and they have identified that often, health inequalities - and in this instance mental health inequalities - exist in relation to sexual orientation and gender, ethnicity, which would also include race and potentially migrant status, disability, and accommodation type. So, men who fall into these categories I would argue are probably the ones who could be considered hard to reach. In an interview for the Metro for an article about male suicide in the Black community, Alex Holmes, therapist and author of the book A Time to Talk (great book by the way, you should definitely get it) – had this to says: “The specific intersection of what it means to be a Black man, a Black trans and, or, queer man, or a Black differently-abled man, at this time is definitely impacting our mental health. The systems are not in place to support us, and there are still many cultural stigmas (both intra-culturally and inter-culturally) that impact how we show up to the world.”

At the same time, I also am stumped by the assertion that there is no effort to engage men in mental health discussions or create awareness. I purposefully held back on releasing this podcast episode in November 2022 because it is also the month of Movember, and entire month dedicated to raising awareness about men’ physical and mental health. And I didn’t want this episode to be received at a time when the focus should be on further creating awareness around men’s mental health – I think the irony might have offended some. Not only that, but there is also Men’s Health Week in June, which is also used to raise awareness about men’s mental health issues.

Alongside this, there are a number of charity organisations that are explicitly aimed at fostering environments for men to open up more about their struggles. For example, “Man Down” in Cornwall, a non-profit charity that offers peer-support groups for men; then there is “Andy’s Man’s Club”, a men’s suicide charity that similarly offers peer-support groups in various locations across the UK; HUMEN, currently offers non-judgemental online support groups every Monday for men who may be struggling with their mental health and thoughts of suicide, and may be moving towards in person support groups. Then there is The Changing Room, supported by the Scottish Association for Mental Health (SAMH), an initiative providing a 12-week programme using football to bring men together to discuss mental health. And those are just some examples. These organisations are linked in the show notes, but they come from quite simple Google searches. I know this is not a competition, but just to give some context there is not necessarily the dearth of mental health support charities and groups for women.

The other interesting thing to think about is that it is commonly understood that there is a gap in male health across the world. According to the website Manual, a website that offers advice of men’s health issues - anything from hair loss, to sexual health, and also mental health - they define a health gap as “differences in the prevalence of disease, health outcomes (both physical and mental), or access to healthcare across different groups”. And the men’s health gap is defined as “a male health gap is when women are generally healthier across their lives than men.” The top ten countries that have male health gaps largely fall within the region of Eastern Europe, with Georgia ranking as the country with the worst male health gap followed by Belarus, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Ukraine, Armenia, Moldova, the Russian Federation, Mauritania, and Slovakia. And because mental health falls under over all health provision, one would imagine that countries that had male health gaps would also then have male mental health gaps, right? So, if the UK does indeed provide poorly for men’s mental health and it is something not considered then you might expect the UK to have a male health gap, too. Right?

Interestingly though, the UK is not one of the countries without a male health gap. In fact, in the UK it is quite the opposite. According to the same website, the UK ranks 12th in the top countries that have female health gaps. So, just to be clear, overall in the UK health outcomes are worse for women than they are men; and again, this would include mental health outcomes.

So, I guess this seems like a good point to try and answer the overall question of this exploration into men’s mental health provision, that being: “In the UK does no one care about men’s mental health?” And I guess I might cop on this one a bit and let you make up your own mind. I think for me to come to an absolute conclusion would be somewhat arrogant as I am not someone who is potentially affected by difficulties with their mental health. To say one way or the other is potentially invalidating for anyone listening. But, the one thing that I have learned from doing these two episodes to thinking about barriers to men accessing men’s mental health is that there are a lot of things to consider. Some of them are internal, and there do appear to be a few external barriers. How insurmountable are they? Well, I guess it depends on the colour of your skin or who you fall in love with, and whether you think something being considered feminine is more of an issue than your mental health needs. There also appears to be quite a lot of available support and efforts to promote men’s mental health - something that does not seem to be equally championed for other genders. I hope, though, at the very least I have provided some evidence to make you think about the question and come to a conclusion for yourself.

If you are a man who is struggling with their mental health, please do consider getting in touch with your GP. Alternatively please look up any of the charities mentioned in this podcast and find a group of lads who will listen. There is also the option, if it is possible, to talk to our friends and family. I know this makes it sound a lot easier than it might actually be, but if there is anything I have learned in my time working with men, and even my own hesitancy and resistance to admitting when things are tough, it’s that we can sometimes be our own worst enemy.

Thank you very much for taking the time to listen to this ramble. As always if you think someone somewhere would find this episode interesting or may benefit from listening to it, please share it. Please also like, share, rate and leave a comment. It helps so much with letting others know about the show. Until next time - take care.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The reason I want to talk about this, and the reason I want men to pay attention, is because there is a growing narrative that exists online that – and as the title of this episode suggests – there is a “war on men”. It is a narrative that has long been held by what could be considered Men’s Rights Activists, a movement that essentially exists in opposition to feminism. MRAs would argue that they are egalitarians, seeking to ensure equality for all, specifically for men, and will do this by highlighting specific populations of men or areas of society in which men experience hardships. Common themes are that of unemployment, high suicide rates among men, boy’s falling behind in education, men having to go to war, supposed lack of custody rights for fathers and parental alienation, and the claim that men experience domestic abuse as frequently as women.

Now it is not the intent of this podcast episode to go through all the issues highlighted by MRAs and discuss them in detail – there is a lot of subtlety and nuance to these issues, which are very real and do exist to some extent. However, MRAs will often use these as examples to highlight how feminism, or the pursuit of equal rights for marginalised groups in general, has left men the forgotten victims of society. Laura Bates discusses Men’s Rights Activist in a lot more detail in her book Men Who Hate Women, which I would highly suggest you read if any of this is of interest to you – and so I won’t get into this right now. But what I will say is that I feel like the “war on men” narrative is fed by the MRA ideology and beliefs about society having “gone too far” with respect to feminism. But in some way, I now feel that the “war on men” narrative is weaponizing masculinity as part of its repertoire, too, suggesting that masculinity is in crisis. And the more this “war on men” narrative - which has its roots in what is known as the manosphere (Laura Bates talks about this in her book, too) - the more this narrative is starting to spread, the more it is starting to make its way into mainstream online arenas such as Instagram and Twitter.

The inspiration for this podcast episode comes from an Instagram post that was shared on the account of Lalalaletmeexplain – if you don’t know who Lalalaletmeexplain is I would highly suggest you follow her. She is a former social worker, author, and I guess she is a dating advice guru (her book is called Block, Delete, Move On), but she is also a very straight-talking feminist voice who I have learned a lot from. A lot of her content is rooted in highlighting sexist and misogynistic behaviour in the dating world, but also branches out into areas of domestic and sexual violence, and calling out general bullshit by men – as is the case with the Instagram post in question. I am not going to disclose who the post was by in this episode, but I have selected some choice passages from the caption to focus on.

The Instagram post in question has a picture of the owner of the account, a man, looking at the camera, smiling quite genially, with the title: “The War on Men” and the caption opens with these first few lines:

“There’s a war going on at the moment that a small group of people can see but the majority can’t (yet)….”“It’s a war on men designed to demonise, oppress and make men weak…”

So, I guess when I read this kind of stuff, I am always curious as to who this war is being declared by. Who is declaring this war? Usually in a war there is an aggressor and a victim I suppose; the person or people declared war upon.

Now, I don’t want to seem like I’m making things a competition, but I guess it would be helpful to point out what a war (that is, acts of aggression and violence) declared a specific gender would look like. And here I would like to declare that I have once more taken inspiration from the stories of Lalalaletmeexplain (I actually have very little of my own original ideas). But in order to do this discussion justice it might be helpful you think about three “wars” against women that are currently being perpetrated in different parts of the world. And just a warning, this is where shit gets a bit heavy.

The first example, on a war on women is that earlier this year in America, a supposed “first world” or “developed” country, the Supreme Court of the United States unleashed what was described as an “unprecedented attack on women, girls, and people of reproductive capacity”. The Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, a law that had provided 50 years of established constitutional protection for abortion, and has now made abortion illegal in America - which in some states also includes abortions related to miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies. And if you think about it, 50 years is not all that long for a law like this to have existed. People have grandparents older than this law. That’s absolutely bonkers if you think about it. But what’s even more bonkers is the fact that this law, a right for those who are able to give birth to choose whether they give both or not, to have autonomy over their body, has been taken away. Just like that. It actually blows my mind and I still cannot fathom how, in this day and age a person’s right to live their life how they choose have just been stripped away. It’s fucking nuts.

The second example is that in September in Iran, a 22-year-old women named Mahsa Amini died while being detained in custody. Her crime? In the capital city Tehrans, Masha Amini was not wearing a hijab in accordance with compulsory Islamic hijab laws - turns out she was wearing a hijab, but she was wearing it loosely. And so she was arrested by the morality police, taken into custody, where she later died having allegedly been beaten in a police truck on her way to being detained. I say allegedly as Iranian authorities claim no violence was used against Masha Amini, but rather that she collapsed from a heart attack.

Her death has sparked “unprecedented protests” in the country, with women defying the governments laws and cutting their hair in solidarity, and joined by men who support these women and wish to change the laws that treat the women of Iran as second class citizens, alongside other grievances of how the Iranian government treats its citizens in general. Seemingly though, these protest are nothing new - there were protests in the late 70s and 80s when the new form of government took over in 1979 and started making plans to restricted the rights and privileges of women, supposedly in line with the faith of Islam. The protests were held for the same reasons they are today, but despite the protests, new restrictions on women’s clothes, became law in 1983 - that’s just under 40 years ago. Again, that’s mad. Additionally, the death of Masha Amini is not the first time violence has been used against women by the so called morality police, not necessarily resulting in death, in the way that Masha Amini was treated (although I could be wrong about this). But it has been reported that women in Iran are continually harassed by the morality police, and if having been found to contravene the hijab laws are made to attend “educational classes” (and who knows that education looks like). This is all apparently a common occurrence.

Then, in South Africa, there is what been referred to in some news sources as a “pandemic” of femicide. The term femicide was seemingly first used in 1801, in a book called A Satirical View of London at the Commencement of the Nineteenth Century, by John Corry, where it was used to refer to the killing of a woman. However, in 1976, it was reintroduced by a feminist pioneer, Diana Russel, at the International Tribunal of Crimes Against Women in order to bring attention to violence against women, and has seen two definitions. The first from 1976 defined femicide as: “the murder of women by men motivated by hatred, contempt, pleasure, or a sense of ownership of women”. While the second definition - updated for the United Nations Symposium on Femicide in 2012, and defined once more by Diana Russel - notes that femicide is “the killing of one or more females by one or more males because they are female”.

In South Africa, the number of women killed is staggering, and the country is included in the top 25 countries in the world for the highest rates of women killed - along with other countries like El Salvador, which ranks number one. But according to the website, Africa Check, in 2020/21, a total of 2,655 women were murdered in South Africa, with an additional 898 women killed in the last quarter of 2021. To put those numbers into context, a BBC article from this year noted that, by comparison, the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) indicate that between April 2020 and March 2021 (so the same time frame that the figures from South Africa were taken), 177 women were murdered in England and Wales, compared to 416 men. 177 women in the UK compared to 2,655 women in South Africa. However, whilst the UK numbers might not be as high as those in South Africa, the UK is still facing its own femicide issue. The same article notes that of the 177 women killed, 109 were killed by a man and 10 by a woman, and in 58 cases there was no known suspect. This means that - where the suspect was known - 92% of women were killed by men in the year ending March 2021.

There is a UK Femicide Census that analyses the murders of women in the United Kingdom. Some of the findings of the 2020 census note that 110 women were killed by men in 2020. 111 men were implicated in those murders, but at the time of publication only 79 had been found responsible for killing a woman - that means roughly a third of perpetrators had not been held accountable. Further stats highlight that 52% of women were killed by a former or current partner, 13% were killed by their son, and only 8% were killed by a stranger. 77% of killings took in the home, in 48% of cases there was a known history of violence and abuse by the perpetrator against the victim, and 53% of perpetrators were know to have previous histories of violence against women.

So, what is the point I am trying to make with all of these horrific stats? I guess it’s that when we talk about a war perpetrated against a gender, there is more evidence - more tangible evidence that can be pointed to, seen, noted down - of who the aggressors might be when it comes to violence perpetrated against women. However, there does not seem to be either a) the same level of violence perpetrated against males and men based on sex or gender or b) an obvious perpetrator. Like I said, I am not trying to say who has it worse, but I guess I am trying to highlight how this narrative of a “war on men” is vague. Although the author does go on to say this:

“Because no one is easier to control then a passive, docile, domesticated doormat that is unsure of himself and feeling a sense of shame for being a man…..”

“Despite what is unconsciously getting fed, we need STRONG men and despite the popular narrative (from the ‘woke’ numpties) there is a shit ton of people that LOVE seeing men step into their (healthy) masculine power…”

“If these c*nts in positions of power thought every single bloke was just going to roll over and become a passive passenger they were wrong.”

See, this is interesting - while the use of “cunts” might be generic, I can’t help but think that he is talking about women and feminism - I might be wrong. But even if I am wrong, there is also an allusion to them being in “positions of power”. Like, who? Who are these people, and why can’t they be named? Is that because there are no real people in positions of power trying to make men docile, passive, and domesticated. But keeping it vague helps it make it seem like it’s a bit of a conspiracy, that there are dark forces at play. Or is it the “woke numpties” who are doing this.

Also, what is it that these “cunts” and “woke numpties” are asking. Last time I checked no one was asking men to be weak or docile; I think you’ll find that men are being asked to not be stoic and emotionless, to get in touch with a wider range of emotions and increase their emotional intelligence - this does not mean weak. Also, we’re being asked to be less reliant of physical violence (or even the threat or capability of violence that Jordan Peterson likes to talk about) and deal with conflict more healthily. And as I said earlier, this does not seem to relate to any of the real world issues facing men, like unemployment, high rates of suicide, things like this. This seems to be a concern about the re-evaluation of masculinity or what it means to be a man.

Because again, the idea that there is something wrong with being weak and docile highlights that there is a particular way of being a man. Even thought the author of this Instagram post and caption talks about men stepping into healthy masculinity, there is still some delineation that one type of way of being a man is better. Like, I always struggle with the word weak when it comes to men - like, what do men like man who made this post mean when they denigrate weak men. Are they talking about physicality and physical strength? Or are they talking about like mental fortitude? Or resiliency in the face of adversity? Or how to stand you ground and be assertive? Because weak can mean so many things. But then, at the same time, there is sometimes a narrative that seems to imply that weak men are the ones who are dangerous - like, how and in what way? Are they weak because even when talking about healthy masculinity there is an element of strength needed to be a man, and with strength comes power? And so are those who denigrate weak men saying that weak men will go to dangerous lengths to obtain power? Well, probably, yeah - because if you make it that you can’t be seen as a man - even a healthy man by this particular individuals construction of masculinity - without any kind of power, then you create power as something to be coveted.

No idea if any of this makes sense - but I suppose what I am trying to highlight is that all of this - this “war on men” rhetoric - appears to be a push back against the idea that the current rule of thumb of masculinity might no longer be up to scratch. And there is something quite insidious about calling it a “war”, because if you’re calling it a war - and this might be me taking my interpretation of this a bit too melodramatically far, but still - if you’re gonna call it a war then you’re likely looking to recruit soldier in the “battle” to push back. Which might sound, as I said, a bit melodramatic, but when coupled with another segment of the caption under question doesn’t feel all that far off:

“Here’s the thing - if men wake up to what is unfolding and step into their power, they’re a lot less likely to roll over it and just take it from those in positions of power. They become a threat to the regime. So gents RISE.”

Which, I am not going to lie, sounds just a teeny bit propaganda-esuqe. It sounds a little bit like a mobilisation, a call to action, which is somewhat concerning more and more, current research is starting to highlight that younger men are buying into this narrative and this rhetoric, one might even use the term radicalised in this way, or even groomed into believing that there is a unknown force out there trying to diminish men. In a 2021 article discussing this (which also features commentary by Laura Bates), research by Dr Joshua Roose notes that one in three men under the age of 35 believe that women’s right have gone too far. And while I am not saying that the specific post in question in ad of itself is adding to this kind of belief, but I would certainly venture that it is part of the difficulty and the concern. And the fact that it is being disseminated online in a popular social media platform like Instagram, and no longer quarantined to the more clandestine, murkier, and lesser known message boards of the internet is what gives me pause.

_

Thank you for taking the time to read this (or if you have listened to it as a podcast). If you have found this interesting please do share, subscribe, or leave a rating or comment. Also, please do come share your thoughts on the topic with me on my Instagram page.

Thanks,

Nice-ish.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is that conversation. I hope the conversation is something that might help in some way.

Please look after yourself when listening to this conversation - it covers quite a sensitive subject.

If you have experienced baby loss, or know of anyone who has, please see the resources below.

Thanks,

Nice-ish

Baby Loss Resources

Sands UK

The Lily Mae Foundation

Still Parents Podcast

Baby Loss Awareness Week website

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hopefully it is of some use - I will caveat this episode that this is just my understanding of things within the world of psychology in the UK. If I have got anything wrong, please do let me know.

As always, please rate, share, follow and leave a comment. Please come say hi and share your thoughts if you have any.

Thanks,

Nice-ish.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

If you have been affected by anything in this podcast episode, please do reach out and talk to someone or a healthcare professional. This podcast is not to be taken as therapy, merely a discussion point about a particular topic. So, please look after yourself if necessary.

Let me know your thoughts (even if you disagree - I am open to having my mind expanded). And as always, if you think someone else would enjoy the episode, please share it. Don’t forget to rate and leave a comment - every little bit helps.

Thanks again,

Nice-ish.

Resources featured:

Post by Tindertranslators.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I won’t say too much more because I’ll give away the answer. It’s not necessarily a coherent and slick episode, but hopefully I go some way to answering the question (without Googling any research or definitions!! Yikes!!)

Apologies about the sound quality - I will need to figure that out, but it’s a work in progress. Also, I don’t have four hours of driving time in a week, that was meant to be in a day - you’ll know what I mean when you listen.

As always, once you have listened let me know what you think (even if you disagree). Come find me on my Instagram page. Please like, share, and recommend.

Best wishes,

Nice-ish.

Resources mentioned:

* iWeigh with Jameela Jamil: Episode 117 - “Understanding narcissism with Dr. Ramani Durvasula

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Before I go ahead, I just want to say that this episode discusses the topic of men’s mental health and touches on some discussion about suicide and other leading causes of men’s ill health and death. I am aware that I have no lived experience of poor physical health, mental illness, or suicide attempts, ideation or self-harm. I do try talk about this subject sensitively, but at times I do tend to some irreverence here and there. Mostly when I think things don’t add up. No disrespect is intended; but I am also trying to be quite factual about things. So, if if parts of this discussion are hard to hear, or you just don’t want to listen anymore, I don’t blame you.

The topic of this larger discussion developed from some very in-depth, behind the scenes conversations I had on my Instagram page following a powerful video posted by UFC fighter, Paddy “The Baddy” Pimblett. In the video, just after a fight, an emotional Paddy makes a very moving and public statement about the loss of a friend who took his own life. Paddy Pimblett makes a plea for men to reach out and to seek support. He states this: “There’s a stigma in this world that men can’t talk. Listen, if you’re a man and you’ve got weight on your shoulders and you think the only way you can solve it is by killing yourself, please speak to someone. Speak to anyone. People would rather - I know I’d rather me mate cry on me shoulder than go to his funeral next week. So please let’s get rid of this stigma, and men start talking”. This video went viral and was shared multiple times on my feed from high profile mental health advocates like Dr Alex George to perhaps slightly lesser known accounts and organisations like Andy’s Man Club.

Interestingly though, in another video where Paddy is at a news conference (I am assuming sometime after the fight) he goes on to say this: “Men just kill themselves and no one cares. We need to change it. There’s no funding for men’s mental health and it’s the biggest killer for men between, like, 21 and 45. And no one talks about it. No one even mentions it”.

Which, I am not going to lie, took me by surprise as I thought it was a really interesting take on the state of men’s mental health. I will admit, this isn’t the first time I had heard this kind of sentiment, but it was certainly the first time I had heard it outside of what is known as the “manosphere”. I will get into this in the second episode of this two part series.

I guess the thing that strikes me is this idea that men are almost left to suffer with their mental health because no one cares. And because no one cares there is no funding and therefore no access to mental health services for men, which means men’s mental health suffers and one of the consequences can be that they end up taking their life. These are obviously not the exact words that Paddy Pimblett said in that later news conference, but I feel like this was the inference. Perhaps an unintended inference, but an inference nonetheless. Which, again, struck me as curious as I had always understood that mental health services, specifically here in the UK where Paddy Pimblett is based, were un-gendered and that any and all mental health services that were available were available for all, including men.

So, I posted these sound bites and video clips onto my stories and asked for the views of my followers along with my own thoughts. And the massive discussion ensued. Honestly, I have never had so much engagement on a story before, which leads me to suspect there is a lot of interest on this particular viewpoint. As a consequence, my response to that discussion has been formatted into a more in-depth exploration of what Paddy Pimblett said. So, if any of my followers are listening know that this is all your fault, the fact that I’ve had to make this a podcast episode. Just so you know!

But before we continue, I just want to highlight that I have nothing against Paddy Pimblett for saying what he said. I hardly knew about the man before that video of him went viral. He is entitled to his views, and I am not having a go at him. In fact, I think it is fantastic that a role model like him spoke about men reaching out if they are in trouble. Cynics might say that the only reason he said anything was because a friend of his had died, and it may likely not have registered with Paddy Pimblett to say anything if that hadn’t happened. Which is a fair point, and is something to perhaps be considered later in the this overall discussion. But I guess the fact is that Paddy Pimblett said what he said, from what looked like a very emotionally vulnerable position, and it generated discussion and further awareness. That in itself is helpful. So, as I said, I am not having a go at Paddy Pimblett.

But what I am interested in, though, and what these episode are about, is the narrative around men’s mental healthcare, which is also ground within the context of men’s healthcare in general.

Now that we have cleared that up, let’s get into it. Let’s have a think about men’s mental health, what the barriers are to men accessing it, and look at the question of whether men’s mental health is cared about or not.

So, as with most things in the world that are complex and multifaceted, there is no one clear cut answer to the question I asked in my stories. Being a DBT therapist, I sometimes think in terms of dialects, that being that two opposing truths (or viewpoints, positions, arguments, etc.) can exist at once. A basic example of this being that some people see a glass as half empty while others might see a glass as half full. These are known as “either/or” positions in that the glass is either half empty or it is half full. Part of recognising or thinking about opposing views is to try and find the balance, or a synthesis of the two positions. This is also known as finding the middle path. A way of viewing things that honours the truth in both positions, known as a “both/and” position. So, with the glass example a dialectical synthesis would be that the glass is both half empty and half full. However, in life opposing views are never that neatly synthesised.

What does this have to do with men accessing mental health services? Well, it seems that with this topic there are the two opposing views. One being that due to social norms and ideas of masculinity, which create internal barriers for men in terms of help-seeking, men do not access mental health service. I will be honest, this is generally the view that I subscribe to, and I mentioned as much in my Instagram stories. And the other view being that there are more prevalent external barriers to men’s help-seeking behaviour and that mental health services can do more to help get men access services.

So, because I don’t have a full time job or a family to help look after, I thought we could explore both of these opposing views of the dialectic and see what they bring up. This first episode will look at men’s internal barrier to help-seeking. While the next episode will focus on the external barriers.

So, in my view, and that shared by some others who I discussed this with on my Instagram page, internal barriers to help-seeking for men relate to ideas of masculinity or what it means to be a man. In previous podcast episodes I have discussed these issues of masculinity: in episodes two and three of this podcast I explore the concepts of toxic masculinity (if you are comfortable with that phrase) and Man Box culture in more detail; so if you want further context to this please check out those episodes. But for the purposes of this specific aspect of today’s discussion I will refresh some of that here and will expand on how help-seeking is hindered by toxic masculinity/Man Box culture.

So, just to clarify, my understanding of toxic masculinity (or Man Box culture) is not that masculinity is toxic – no one is saying that. Except for maybe the people who are upset about the term because that’s what they think it says (Jordan Peterson I am looking at you, pal!). They are the only ones who are saying that. The conceptualisation of toxic masculinity is that there are certain “rules” of how to “be a man” that have evolved over time and have been passed down through generations and within cultures (and here, because it is the culture in which I exist and have more knowledge of, I refer specifically to the Western concept of manhood – although it is possible that some of these rules are present cross-culturally).

These “rules” outline what those who are socialised as men should and should not do. Masculinity is largely a social construct (built around some biological differences between men and women), therefore these “rules” are based on the idea of what a man should or should not be, and they can change (and have changed) at particular points in time and within a particular contexts. However, while these rules have changed, when they are at their most accepted by society and have become understood as societal norms (which is also known as hegemonic masculinity), these rules are pretty fixed and rigid.

When writing the episodes on toxic masculinity, I read a book called “Is Masculinity Toxic?” by Andrew Smiler in which he talked about the fact that there have been three predominant models of masculinity, as it were, and that we are currently in the third model, known as industrialised masculinity. This form of masculinity arose in the 20th century as a consequence of the capitalism, which sought to ensure that men focused on their job and very little else and is primarily how we as men (and literally every other person who lives in the West) are expected to function today. In his book, Smiler notes that we are entering into a fourth model of masculinity, which is why the current model of masculinity and what it means to be a man is being questioned and challenged.

In largely Western cultures these “rules” of manhood are things like: “men have control over women”, “men are heterosexual, hypsersexual, and sexually dominant”, “men are providers”, and “men are financially secure”. These rules have far reaching harmful societal consequences. For example, the rules of men having control over women and being hypersexual and sexually dominant result in the normalisation of sexist and misogynistic behaviour. Which, at it’s least consequential (which is still quite serious) can create uncomfortable situations for women at work, on the streets, or nights out where men can engage in persistent sexually harassing behaviour. And at it’s worst, can result in significant instances of physical and sexual violence, such as domestic abuse and rape. While rules such as men needing to be emotionally and physically tough, and to not show emotions, cuts us off from learning how to develop empathy, which increase our likelihood to engage in aggression and violence. Not only towards women and other gender groups and marginalised folk, but towards each other. This also takes various forms: from the common and everyday low level bullying that we like to call “banter”, to the fact that in 2021 in the UK 70% of homicide victims were male with 94% of those convicted of murder being male. I explore all of this in a bit more detail in episode three of my podcast, so go check that out there.

However, rules of the toxic masculinity and the Man Box that relate to the issue of help-seeking are things like: (again) “real men are physically and emotionally tough”, “real men don’t show emotions”, and “real men never ask for help.” These stringent rules, and the threat of being seen as less of a man, and - in the eyes of some - being seen as feminine or doing things what women do, ensure that we stick to these rules to our very detriment. It is these rules, and variations of it - “man up”, “boys don’t cry”, “don’ be a pussy” - is what results in men seeking less help in general. Not just for mental health support, but for all forms of health concerns.

At this point you might be wondering if men’s health is that poor, anyway? Like, are men dying younger or more ill? I guess one way to answer that is to highlight that in July 2022, the World Health Organisation published an overview of men’s health and well-being in Europe, stating in the opening lines of the report’s introduction: “In recent years, the health and well-being of men has received increasing attention in the WHO European Region. A key trigger for this attention is the high level of premature mortality among men, particularly in the eastern part of the Region. Life expectancy at birth in males in countries of the Region ranged from 64.7 to 81.2 years in 2016, while healthy life expectancy ranged from 58.7 to 72.4 years.”

The report highlights that that main causes of death for men in the European Region of the WHO were what’s known as non-communicable diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, cancers, diabetes, and respiratory diseases. The other highest cause of death was linked to mental ill health, including substance use and self-harm and suicide, noting that: “self-harm and suicide comprise a significant cause of death and disease burden among men in the Region (WHO, 2018a): 127,882 deaths were attributed to self-harm and suicide in 2015, equivalent to a crude rate of 14.1 deaths per 100,000 population, which is the highest rate among all WHO regions.” So, yeah, while the report states that men’s morality rates in the Europe are improving, there is still al lot of variation between countries, and that overall that state of men’s health is pretty dire.

Within the report’s introduction it also goes on to say: “The focus on men’s health has also been driven by a growing body of evidence that provides a better understanding of how gender intersects with social, economic, environmental, political and cultural determinants of health, influencing exposure to risk factors and interactions with health systems.”

Some risk factors related to men’s higher risk of ill health that I had not thought about too much are men’s general increased risk taking behaviour and the breadwinner role. In terms of risk taking, it was noted in the report that men are likely to demonstrate higher risk taking in terms of smoking, choosing poorer diets, and drinking. For example, one study from within the Russian Federation suggested that heavy drinking of strong spirits “elevates or maintains a man’s status in working-class social groups by facilitating access to power associated with the hegemonic ideal of the real working man”. Alongside this, there is also noted research which has shown that in most societies, “males are less abstemious (I had to look this up - it means to indulge moderately), and that men tend to be greater so-called big drinkers and cause more problems as a result of these intensive consumption patterns, factors that are considered a measure of masculinity.” So, basically, men see it as a badge of honour, or see it as a measure of “doing masculinity right” to consume excessive amount of alcohol.

In terms of breadwinning, a systematic review highlighted how being a male breadwinner can be a factor for myocardial infarction and chronic back pain, while another study found that men who adhered to the breadwinner model felt compelled to earn money and return to work soon after a heart attack. So, even the idea of being the primary income provider can bring with it a lot of stress - to the point where you can have a heart attack (which is what a myocardial infarction is), and that once you have had said heart attack you would want to get back to work as quickly as possible. Now, I am aware of how this ties into capitalism, and the link between capitalism and masculinity is beyond the scope of this episode, but can you see how this links back to the industrialised, stoic, competitive, dog-eat-dog version of masculinity that we are currently existing in.

What am I trying to say? I guess what I am trying to say is that men clearly have some health issues that are impacting on them, causing them to basically die earlier than women. And there seems to be growing body of evidence (I’ve only named a couple of things here, please do check out the full WHO overview if you are interested) to suggest that the way in which men choose to adhere to the rules of masculinity is impacting on their health outcomes. Basically the way in which men think, or rather have been told they need to live their lives is having a direct negative impact on the length of their lives.

Therefore, it’s not too much of a stretch to think that adherence to these rules of masculinity would also impact on men’s decisions to seek help, specifically around mental health difficulties. As mentioned earlier, these specific rules would be things like appearing physically and emotionally strong, not showing emotions, and not asking for help. The WHO overview goes on to note that an analysis of coping mechanisms show that men, more so than women, would tend to cope with their problems and dilemmas through addictions and ignoring the need for treatment, and that men would avoid asking for help or deny any state of discomfort as doing so would be considered as being weak or vulnerable.

Closer to home, in an article by The Guardian written in 2102 it was reported that men were only likely to visit the GP, which is a fist line contact point for mental health support, four times a year, while women would visit their GP on average six times a year. Similarly, men were likely to visit a pharmacy four times a year compared to women’s average of 18 times a year. The same article highlighted that nine in ten men did not want to trouble a doctor or pharmacist unless they had a serious problem, leading the article to conclude that “men aren’t taking full advantage of the support to maintain good health which is available free of charge on their doorstep.”

In terms of mental health care, it has been noted by the Mental Health Foundation website that only 36% of referrals to talking therapies are men. However, according to the Adult Substance Misuse Treatment Statistics report for 2019 to 2020, published by Public Health England, men made up over two-thirds of those accessing treatment for substances (including alcohol, opiates and non-opiates), which fits as we have just heard that men are more likely to use substances as a means of coping with their difficulties. So, they may be accessing a service of some kind, but it’s not necessarily guaranteed that the substance use treatment will focus on the mental health difficulties that precipitate or perpetuate the use of substances in the first instance. All of this, everything I have said up till this point, in a nutshell could be considered internal barriers to help-seeking, which develop as a consequence of these ideas of masculinity and what it means to be a man.

Now, I am aware that some who oppose the view that masculinity can have some bad or unhelpful parts to it view these internal barriers to help-seeking as victim-blaming. That is, they think that by saying that elements of masculinity create internal barriers for men this is somehow men’s fault. And the answer to this is a bit yes and no, too. Do men have some agency over whether they adhere to and subscribe to the rule of manhood that limit their opportunities to accessing health care? Well, yes. I mean, if a man is ill it just makes sense that he goes to the GP to get himself checked out. That is not really anyone else’s responsibility. At the same time, the messages that men have been fed from society and internalised (like those previously mentioned) they didn’t ask to be told, to be received. We are all products of our environment and the cultures in which we grow up – and if the rules of that society and culture are that you do x, y, and z, well, then generally you end up doing x, y, and z. So, if a man has received multiple messages from multiple sources that men should always be strong and that to show weakness is unmanly, then it’s not really a man’s fault that he does not want to show any signs of weakness because he may then be viewed as being less of a man. And ultimately, this entire conversation is not about assigning blame – it’s about looking at what some of the barriers to help-seeking might be, where they come from, and if we can understand the societal messages and see how damaging they can be for men and men’s physical and mental health, then perhaps we can start to challenge and change those messages.

There we go, that it. That’s a bit of a whistle stop tour on this part of the dialectic. On this part of the views around men’s mental health. It might feel short, but as I have said, I have discussed some of these points in further detail in other podcast episodes. So, if you want you can always go and listen to those when you are finished here. Some cynics might think I am plugging my own work.. and you would not be wrong, my friend! In the next episode, I will look a bit more external, to the other side of the dialect and explore the external barriers to men’s help-seeking, and also to answering the question of whether men’s mental health is cared about.

If you have enjoyed this episode, please rate it and leave a comment wherever you’re listening. And, if you think that someone else might benefit from hearing my bullshit, please recommend it or share it on social media. As always, I am happy to hear from any of you, so please come find me on Instagram and say hi. As always, have a great day. Or not. No pressure. Bye for now.

Music

Song: Tobu - Roots [NCS Release]Music provided by NoCopyrightSoundsFree Download/Stream: http://ncs.io/toburootsWatch:

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Over the last month or so, social media has been swept up by the increased presence - and subsequent removal - of Andrew Tate, the self-proclaimed “King of Toxic Masculinity”. Today’s episode is a discussion about this recent social media phenomenon, and to discuss it with me is James Oliver (@thecompassionateman). James released several pieces of social media content in relation to the “rise” of Andrew Tate, which we talk about.

The conversation covers some speculation about how Andrew Tate became as big as he did, the current state of masculinity, and what compassion looks like when it relates to someone like Andrew Tate (and in general, those who have done harmful things). More specifically we think about how compassion relates to accountability. This discussion entails holding two opposing views at the same time, which make it a tricky conversation to have. But I think James and I do it justice. Or maybe we don’t. I will let you decide.

If you think the conversation was one worth of sharing, please do so. Additionally, if you appreciate the show, do rate it, recommend it to your friends, and I would be grateful if you could leave a comment, too.

As always, all the best,

Nice-ish.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hopefully it is a meaningful episode. Please do get in touch if you have any thoughts (or if you just want to tell us how great we are - praise never gets old!). And as always, please follow, like, share, and recommend this podcast. A review and rating would not go amiss, either.

Thanks, as always.

Nice-ish.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dr Martha has also launched her very own podcast, “Talking Sense”, which I have no doubt will be so helpful and informative. So go and check that out, too.

As always, if you like this episode, please do rate it, share it, and get in touch with any thoughts you may have to share.

Thanks as always.

Nice-ish.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

At the same time, there were many men protesting the generalisation of “men” as dangerous; declaring that is was #notallmen. Around the time, James Walsham, then known as The Honest Bloke (now known as @thecompassionateman) invited Aileen Barratt (@tindertranslators) on to his podcast. The discussion focused on men’s violence towards women and also about what men - the normal everyday man - can do to play their part in reducing this specific form of violence.

One year on from Sarah Everard’s disappearance and subsequent murder, I was curious to know if anything had changed, and if so, how. So, I thought it fitting and relevant to invite Aileen, the inimitable Tinder Translators, to have a chat with me about that.

This is that conversation.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

If you enjoy the episode, please tell your friends, follow, subscribe and rate the show wherever you get your podcasts.

Thank you, kindly.

Further Reading:.

* Hell Yes: The Seven Best Reasons for Swearing

* The Surprising Health Benefits of Swearing

* A Case for Cursing

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As always, it would be wonderful to hear your feedback or to hear your thoughts on the discussion.

You can find both guests on Instagram:

David Chambers: @theauthenticman_

Alex Holmes: @byalexholmes

Further Reading:

* “A Straight Talking Introduction to the Power Threat Meaning Framework” by Lucy Johnstone and Mary Boyle

* “Black Skins White Masks” by Franz Fannon

* “Everyday Sexism” by Laura Bates

* “Fix the System, Not the Women” by Laura Bates

* “Humankind” by Rutger Bregman

* “The History of Masculinity: From Patriarchy to Gender Justice” by Ivan Jablonka

* “Invisible Women” by Caroline Criado-Perez

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Part two will be released in a few weeks’ time. But, if you want to get in touch and be part of the conversation come find us on social media.

You can find both guests on Instagram:

David Chambers: @theauthenticman_

Alex Holmes: @byalexholmes

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I love books, and I love talking about books - I think I might do more of that on this podcast, or maybe not. Who knows. I seem to have lots of ideas that I don’t always seem to follow through with. But today, instead of talking about the usual serious things I typically bang on about, I will instead be talking about books. Well, more specifically about an author and the books they write. Even more specifically it is about an author and the books they write, which I would class as not the best books ever written. And if you want to be absolutely precise, it is about an author and the books they write which are (in my humble opinion) godawful and should (probably) never really be read. Let me explain…

Context

For those of you who don’t know (I would be very surprised if you’ve found this podcast through means other than my Instagram page, but just in case) every now and then I like to make enquiries about what my followers are currently reading. I like to get ideas of what to read for myself (to add to my never ending to-be-read list) and to share those ideas with the rest of my followers (so they can then add books to their own never ending to-be-read lists; I like to think I’m a philanthropist in that way). Over time there have been a number of followers who have shared that they have been reading (or would soon to be reading) books by Christopher Berry-Dee.

Mr Berry-Dee likes to write books about serial killers – more specifically, the times in which he has spoken to serial killers. Titles in Mr Berry-Dee’s bibliography include such gems as: Talking with Serial Killers (there’s the podcast title) and Talking with Serial Killers: World’s Most Evil and Talking with Serial Killers: Stalking; and then there’s Talking with Psychopaths and Savages and Talking with Psychopaths and Savages: Beyond Evil; also Talking with Female Serial Killers; Dead Men Talking: The World’s Worst Serial Killers in Their Own Words… you get the picture. In fairness to Mr Berry-Dee not all of his book titles contain the word “talk”, but they are all about killers and promise some manner of being able to provide insight into the minds of these individuals.

Well, that all sounds jolly good, you must be thinking. As a Forensic Psychologist that kind of thing must be right up your street. And you’re not wrong. Not too long ago, must be about a year ago or so, I bought a copy of Talking with Psychopaths and Savages: Beyond Evil the apparent follow up to Talking with Psychopaths and Savages – at the time I did not know that Beyond Evil was a follow up as I had never heard of Mr Berry-Dee, but was excited to get stuck into a newly discovered true crime author. I had never really read much true crime up to this point – I was reasonably new to reading non-fiction in general, but I think I had read The Dark Side of the Mind by Kerry Daynes (which is excellent, by the way), and so I thought Beyond Evil would be an interesting read. The fact that it was such a sensationalistic title should have been a warning; but as I say, I was pretty new to true crime non-fiction, so I was none the wiser (and besides the cover looked creepy as fuck, so I was hooked in by that – you know what they say about books and covers, right?). And so, I read Beyond Evil. Jesus. I wish I had not.

Which brings me back round to why you are listening to this particular episode. The book that seems to be most regularly suggested as a current read by followers of my Instagram page is the original Talking with Serial Killers, published in 2001, which was recently recommended again – and so, as a means to doing those of you who give a shit a service, I thought I would spend some time going through the reasons why I dislike Mr Berry-Dee’s books, which might then inform your decision to read his books… or not.

At this point, I would like to point out that while I will be critically analysing Mr Berry-Dee and his books, this is not intended as a personal attack on the man. I have no idea who he is, and I am fully aware that it takes a lot of work to write a book. I have never written a book, although I have completed a Doctoral thesis (which is about as long as one of Mr Berry-Dee’s books), which involved a lot of research and multiple edits and re-writes – so I am somewhat familiar with the process and rigors involved with producing a piece of written work. Therefore, I have some appreciation of what it takes to write a book, and at the same time I have some awareness of what it takes to produce a piece of good(ish) writing. So, on that basis this is not a personal attack or a vendetta, and I am certainly not about the cancel culture – but rather it is my intention for this podcast to serve as an an in-depth look into why (in my view) you should not bother with reading any books written by Mr Berry-Dee. Just for clarity, I am not saying don’t ever read them, but I would advise that you maybe you spend your time more constructively or seek out alternative sources of true crime non-fiction if reading about killers is your bag.

Additionally, I will admit that I have not read the particular book by Christopher Berry-Dee that seems to be continually recommended (i.e. Talking with Serial Killers). As noted earlier, I had the misfortune of reading Talking with Psychopaths and Savages: Beyond Evil. Therefore, while I can’t comment on Talking with Serial Killers per se, I have had several discussions with others who share similar views about his other books; enough discussion for me be confident that the issues I noticed while reading Beyond Evil are universally characteristic of his books in general. In fact, I remember telling a colleague of mine who was finishing off their Forensic Doctorate at the time how bad the book was and offered it to them to read (again, see how much of a philanthropist I am), and they were so infuriated with the book they were unable to finish it. They wanted to give it back to me and I told them I would rather they burn the book than it ever be in my possession ever again. I think it was eventually donated to a charity shop. Or binned. Which in my view is equally as fitting

Also, I don’t remember Beyond Evil all that well. I can remember the impression it made, but I can’t remember all the detail - bit like a bad pull on a night out: a decision you made at a the time based on all the information available (in this instance a morbid interest in people who kill other people, a freaky cover, a sensationalistic title, and the promise of learning something about what makes killers tick), only to be disappointed at the outcome and for it to be an instance in your life you’d sooner forget rather than hold onto any concrete memory of. As such, you know it was something that happened that you’re not best pleased about, but the specifics are a bit fuzzy.

Having said that, here is what I didn’t like.

What Qualifies Mr Berry-Dee to do What he Does?

Firstly, I’m not clear on what Mr Berry-Dee’s qualifications are. In all fairness, I’m not entirely sure what qualifications one needs to write a book about those who have committed murder. But, aside from a keen interest in a particular topic, I would imagine that a career in journalism, or some profession that is associated with the Criminal Justice System would be desirable. Or at the very least some experience in writing non-fiction books. And I am not too sure that Mr Berry-Dee has any of these; okay, I lie. He has experience in writing non-fiction books, but not very well. This aspect of the quality of the books will be explored a little later.

Coming back to his qualifications. In an (admittedly very brief) internet search of Mr Berry-Dee, the only thing that comes up that gives some indication to his credentials is the claim that he is an “investigative criminologist”… Now I am not sure if that’s a thing. It might be, but I have certainly not heard of one (and I don’t claim to know every job role in the whole world that does or does not exist). But I have heard of a criminologist and I have heard of an investigative journalist, but not the combination of the two. But, okay, yes, you are right, there is the very outside possibility that a “investigative criminologist” could exist.

If this is indeed what Mr Berry-Dee is he is not very transparent about where he qualified to get this interesting (i.e. probably self-dubbed) title. What he seems to be more interested in letting his fans know (on his website) is that he used to be a Green Beret Commando in the Royal Marines and that he is (and here I quote directly) a “direct descendant of Dr John Dee, Court Astrologer to Queen Elizabeth I” and that he is (another direct quote of the website) “entitled to use his ancestors coat-of-arms”. Okay - was anyone saying he couldn’t?

Additionally, in the biography section of his website, he highlights that at the age of 49 (he is now 74) he became the owner and Editor-in-chief of The Criminologist (more quotes) “the worlds oldest and most respected journal…on matters concerning: law enforcement; penology; forensic psychiatry/psychology; penal reform; the judiciary, and all matters under the criminology masthead” (so quite a lot). Alongside this, he was appointed as Director of “The Criminology Research Institute” [there are quotation marks around the name of this institute on his website]. Now, again, I am not saying that you need to have specific qualifications in order to have an interest in a particular topic, nor that you have to have a specific degree or qualification to write about a particular topic either. But, if you are going to claim that you are a criminologist - which, to be fair, I’m not sure if it is a protected title or not, but I would hazard that if you are going to call yourself one then perhaps you might need some kind of evidence that backs this title up, even at undergrad level. Having said that, maybe it is the ownership and editorial position held within The Criminologist journal and being Director of “The Criminologist Research Institute” that affords Mr Berry-Dee the privilege of holding the title of “investigative criminologist”. Let’s take a closer look at these two titles shall we.

What I can find on the old Google search engine (after another admittedly very basic and not at all involved search) doesn’t quite align with what Mr Berry-Dee states in his biography. Firstly, the only (easily findable, and therefore one could argue most likely the actual “world’s most respected”) journal called The Criminologist is an American journal from the American Society of Criminology, of which the Managing Editor is Kelly Vance. Next on the list in terms of Google hits (and to be fair, I actually thought I was onto something here) is a magazine called The Criminologist. However, on the Wikipedia page for the magazine it is noted that the magazine went out of publication in 1998. Mr Berry-Dee was 50 at this point, which means that if this is the magazine (which he calls a journal) he claims to have been owner and Editor-in-Chief of at the age of 49, it went out of publication one year after he took ownership of it. However, seeing as his name does not appear at all in the two paragraph write up for The Criminologist on Wikipedia, I am going to assume this is not the journal in question (because it is after all a magazine and not a journal).

As for the “The Criminology Research Institute”, another (very basic) internet search reveals that in the UK there are only a handful of criminology institutes that have the words “criminology” or “research” or “institute” in their title. The first Google hit is for the Institute of Criminology at the University of Cambridge and Mr Berry-Dee does not appear on the current academic or research staff list on the institutes website. The second hit is for the Institute for Research in Criminology, Community, Education and Social Justice for De Montfort University in Leicester. Again, a quick look at the academic staff listed for De Montfort Uni does not list Mr Berry-Dee… are we starting to notice a pattern yet by any chance…? For someone who appears to claim an authority of knowledge and experience in a particular field, Mr Berry-Dee’s qualifications and so-claimed positions of expertise within that field do not seem to square up (or even exist if we’re being honest - again, this is all based on very brief and cursory internet searches. I would happily be proven wrong if someone else is able to verify any of the organisations and positions Mr Berry-Dee claims to hold).

Mr Berry-Dee’s Books Have a Self-Published Feel

Moving onto the next issue I have with Mr Berry-Dee’s book, and this relates to the fact that at the time of reading Beyond Evil I got the sense that it was self-published. Now before you come at me about self-published books and how there are perfectly good books out there that have been self-published, I know there are. I’m not taking a swing at self-publishing itself, but what I am taking issue with is badly self-published books, which is exactly what I thought Mr Berry-Dee’s books are. At the time of reading Beyond Evil I had no proof of it’s self-publication-ness other than the really bad (and that’s being kind. Some might say “atrocious”) writing. We’ll come back to that. Having looked into this further, on his website Mr Berry-Dee notes that that he is the “writer of some 36 separate book titles listed with Public Lending Right (PLR), published by W.H. Allen, Virgin Books and long time loyal friend and publisher John Blake (London) and now also Blake/Bonnier”. Again, some pretty basic internet searching reveals that the publishers listed exist and are legit. However, this is where things breakdown again and it appears that Mr Berry-Dee is trying to paint a picture more grand than the one that exists.

The Public Lending Right that Mr Berry-Dee speaks of is an agreement that forms part of being part of The British Library (which, if you search his name in the British Library catalogue, his books do appear, which is great). But all the Public Lending Right relates to is the fact that authors receive payment from a central fund as remuneration their books being available in the library, i.e. they get some cash for their books being loaned out to people for free. Which is fair enough, but I am not quite sure what telling us he is listed with the Public Lending Right is meant to prove, other than to sound fancy, maybe?

Furthermore, although he noted that he has been published by W.H. Allen and Virgin Books, which both appear to be subsidiaries of Penguin books, he is no longer listed on the Penguin books website. Now, from this I can’t know if he has ever been published by W.H. Allen or Virgin Books, but if he is no longer published by them is is a bit of false advertising to say that he is? I don’t know. Just seems a bit iffy to put that in your bio if that is not the current case - and it if was the case in the past then is it more appropriate to highlight that you were formerly published by a particular publishing company? I don’t know. Again, it seems to be geared towards portraying a bit of a façade. Anyway, moving on.

So, John Blake publishing also appears to be a legit publishing company and appears to be an “imprint” of Bonnier UK Publishing. I had to look up what an imprint was and apparently an imprint is like a subsidiary company of a bigger publishing company. So, the same way that W.H. Allen and Virgin Books are imprints of Penguin books. Imprint publishing companies allow parent publishing companies to focus on specific genres and/or demographic populations. In looking up John Blake Publishing, there is an actual copy of Talking with Serial Killers on the publisher’s page, so it seems that Mr Berry-Dee’s books are not in fact self-published.

What that doesn’t explain then is why the books are so badly written. As noted before, I have not read all the books, but when I say the books are badly written I mean that the book I read, Beyond Evil, made Fifty Shades of Grey seem like a literary classic. The structure was fairly formulaic in that each person Mr Berry-Dee supposedly interviewed was written about as if it were their individual Wikipedia page entry, which if that is what you wanted then that’s fine. But then you could just read the Wikipedia pages of the supposedly interviewed serial killers lives instead of a book about them. From what I can remember, the Mr Berry-Dee makes a big deal about having access to those he writes about; in that he has somehow managed to get the subjects in his books to speak to him and give him unparalleled access and the opportunity to hear never before heard facts and insights into the murders and the murderers lives. From the perpetrators themselves. However, this was not always the case. In Beyond Evil I think he wrote about one prisoner he interviewed, and then the rest of the book was just about murders and the murderers written from a fact-based research perspective (almost as if Mr Berry-Dee just looked up the Wikipedia pages). Mr Berry-Dee did not, for the rest of the book, seem to speak to anyone. But even the one person he interviewed felt a bit off in some way… I can’t put my finger on it, but I got the sense he didn’t actually speak to the person. There was something about the tone of Mr Berry-Dee’s supposed interactions that left me questioning the authenticity of what was being written. But we’ll get to the tone a bit more in a second.

The other thing that is very surprising seeing as Mr Berry-Dee’s books are in fact published is the number of spelling and grammatical errors that are peppered throughout the book. Badly constructed sentences, incorrectly spelled words, odd usage of punctuation (I think I remember the intermittent use of double full stops at the end of sentences). The reason it is surprising is because I would assume that the publishing company would edit Mr Berry-Dee’s work. I am not familiar with the intricacies of how publishing works, but I would just naturally assume that if someone ran a publishing company they would have editors to check things like spelling, grammar and punctuation use - my understanding is that this comes right at the end and that structure and narrative are focused on first. But it seems like focus on the final touches were omitted and the end result is just shy of a final draft. By no means am I implying that Mr Berry-Dee didn’t have anyone read through his work and edit it - it just seems like it way maybe not done enough. I have picked up on the occasional printing and editorial mishaps in books before, but the number and frequency of the overall writing mistakes in Beyond Evil seemed way outside what might be considered normal for human/editorial error. And it just added to the overall disillusionment of the book, and really made me feel like I had wasted the five quid I had spend on the book in Tesco.

The Tone

In all fairness, everything I have just spoken about doesn’t make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things: Mr Berry-Dee has written a number of books about an area of interest that a lot of people have, and he is well within his right to do so. Technically, he doesn’t need any qualifications to do this, and so what if his claims of authority don’t seem to match anything that exits on the internet? Who gives a shit that his books aren’t the most cleanly finished articles publication-wise, right? Just so long as he can give us a balanced, objective view of what we want to read about, right?

Well… maybe this is where my biggest issue with Mr Berry-Dee comes in.

Obviously we all have biases and we all have agendas. I have my own internal biases that guide my decision making, things I choose to speak about, things I post on my Instagram page (or, in some cases, don’t). And I guess the same thing applies when writing a book. Only thing is, as best I can I try and check my biases, and I think about my agendas. Based on this singular book I read by Mr Berry-Dee, I think he has three very strong agendas, and I do wonder about them. Firstly, I think he wants us to think he is hard. Secondly, he wants us to think he is either anointed, or blessed, or in some way savvy enough to be the only person who can get into the minds of these dangerous individuals. And thirdly, I think he dislikes serial killers very much, despite spending what feels like a very long period of his life writing about them.

So, the reason I think he wants his readers to think he’s hard is because in the book I read it feels like he spent quite a lot of time telling the reader (that would be me) how much he held his own in the one and only interview with a serial killer in the book (serial killer and psychopath; remember, the book is about psychopaths and savages). And then, if I remember correctly, he kind of says the same thing about the other interviews he’s conducted (oh, he also references his other books - a lot. At time it felt like he was trying to advertise his other books in the book I was reading. It felt so odd. Anyway). He seemed to give the sense that the only way he could speak to his interviewee was by not being intimidated, and he gave this impression in the book by giving it the textual version of the “the big I am”. I think I remember him writing that he had like a staring competiton of something with the interviewee in Beyond Evil. It felt like a very alpha male, ego-driven rhetoric.

It is very possible that Mr Berry-Dee is hard as nails, he was after all a Green Beret… but it felt a little forced, like it was being done for dramatic effect or something; almost as if he was saying, “This shit is fucking bonkers, it is not for the faint of heart, and I am the only one who can do this.” I can’t quite put my finger on it. It’s almost as if he wants the reader to be grateful for putting himself at risk. And he seems to give the impression that it is because of this hard as nails, take-no-shit demeanour that he has that he is able to gain access to the people he interviews. That no one else but he could do it. Overall, it’s a weird vibe for the book.

And finally, I got a distinct lack of empathy for the people Mr Berry-Dee was writing about, and this includes both the serial killers and their victims. Now, whether or not you think that someone who has killed a number of people deserves empathy is not my concern at this present moment and it is not something I am going to try and convince you of at this stage. That is a very complex position to take, and I might discuss it one day. I suppose in relation to this book, perhaps I didn’t necessarily expect an overwhelming degree of empathy for those who had committed the murders, but I did kind of expect some form of objectivity. I am not very knowledgeable about the field of criminology, but my understanding is that part of the field entails trying to understand why offenders commit their offences. And, as part of his role as a “investigative criminologist”, one might expect a degree of objective curiosity and critical investigation on the part of Mr Berry-Dee into the reasons why the serial killers under interview did what they did. It is possible the book contained some of that, but it doesn’t stand out from memory, which for me highlights that this particular aspect of the book (which, is meant to be a selling point of the over all series of book) was - maybe not missing - but perhaps distinctly lacking.

But what you do get instead is a seemingly unrelenting barrage of disparagement of those who had committed the killings. I can’t remember all the words used, but within the text there was frequent references to the people who had committed the multiple murders as “monsters” and other terms of that ilk. It felt very sensationalistic, demeaning, and it basically read as a purposeful way for Mr Berry-Dee to express his contempt for the subjects he wrote about, which is weird. I am not saying he had to like the interview subjects, but it gave the impression that Mr Berry-Dee held himself to a much higher moral standard and positioned himself as the authority - in everything. It was this seemingly grandiose hubris (that’s a polite way of saying narcissistic arrogance) that led me to question Mr Berry-Dee’s qualifications in writing the book. He writes with such authority and confidence, which is hard to not notice because it is amplified by the seemingly lack of any major journalistic integrity.

Alongside this, Mr Berry-Dee did not seem to have much empathy for the victims included in the books. I can’t quite remember the details on this part, I must admit, bit I have some memories him potentially victim-blaming or being very judgemental of the victims in his recounting of the details of their deaths. I certainly don’t remember the victims being written about with any compassion.

All of this being said, his books are available in Waterstones and Tesco and I am sure other places that books are sold, so he does seem to be popular - or at the very least he has managed to market himself very well. And he seems to have tapped into a market for which there is a demand. Which I can understand - I myself got to where I am in life with the job that I am in due to a similar morbid fascination and interest in people who do really horrible things. I guess my issue is that the books that Mr Berry-Dee writes (which I know is based mostly based on the singular book of his that I have read) don’t feel very… and I am trying to think of a constructive way of saying this… they don’t feel very nice. I know that is a weird way to phrase it, but the book I read didn’t make me feel comfortable. Not that you should feel comfortable reading about horrible things, but it was the tone and the attitude, I guess, of Mr Berry-Dee that left me feeling uncomfortable.

Perhaps I am too biased with the work I do and the professional requirement (and personal value I have) of unconditional positive regard for my fellow human being that impacted the way in which I read Mr Berry-Dee’s book. I am also aware of the contradiction that exits in that I made a comment about Mr Berry-Dee’s supposed moral superiority he held over those he has written about in his books and what I have just said about holding people unconditional positive regard. It is very possible that I now come across as holding some kind of moral superiority, and it is very possible that I now come across as a hypocritical prick; but I guess I am just highlighting why the book left an unpleasant mark on me.

Anyway, as I said at the start of all this, I am not telling you to not read any of his books - I am not your parent. You are free agents able to make your own decisions and to do what the fuck you want; but perhaps this might shape your views of the bools if you do read any of them. Actually, if you do end up reading it, let me know your thoughts. Let me know if I am completely off the mark. Also, if you like trashy, sensationalistic books then they might be right up your street. I mean, they are still non-fictional books, and from what I can tell you will learn about the basic series of events that occurred for all the murders that he writes about. I am just not sure you will gain anything insightful, is all I’m saying. At the same time, if you have listened to this and I have put you off reading his books, but you already have one on your book shelf and can now be considered a waste of money… sorry!

But that’s it from me for this episode. The usual spiel still applies - if you liked listening to this or any of my previous episodes, please rate, subscribe or leave a comment wherever you get your podcasts. And please tell your friends and family about me. I would be ever so grateful. And as always, have a great day. Or not. Whatever, no pressure. Cheers!

I have exciting news to share: You can now read The Nice-ish Ramblings in the new Substack app for iPhone.

With the app, you’ll have a dedicated Inbox for my Substack and any others you subscribe to. New posts will never get lost in your email filters, or stuck in spam. Longer posts will never cut-off by your email app. Comments and rich media will all work seamlessly. Overall, it’s a big upgrade to the reading experience.

The Substack app is currently available for iOS. If you don’t have an Apple device, you can join the Android waitlist here.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In today’s episode, Alex and I focus a bit more on the here and now in terms of what men can do to re-define masculinity. We discuss a whole host of things: we think about self-reflection and what men may need to do to examine whether they engage in toxic masculine behaviours; we talk about his book (which is great, by the way); and we think about friendships and meaningful connections between men. I really enjoyed listening back to this half of the chat as I feel like there are some helpful things for men to think about (or even people who know men, which is very likely). So, this feels like a practical and useful chat, which I enjoyed being a part of and listening back to (even if I do say so myself and even though I hate the sound of my own voice). Anyway, I hope you find some value in what Alex and I have to say.

Oh, and as I said last time, Alex has a much better microphone than I do, so I do very much apologise in advance for the poor sound quality from my side of the conversation - it usually seems to happen when I get really excitable. Which is quite often…. soz!

Right, strap yourselves in - the discussion picks up right in the middle of a chat, so there is no preamble. Enjoy.

I am still working on the transcript for this – it will be up in the next few days, thank you for your patience.

There you go, that is the wisdom and the reflections of Mr Alex Holmes. I don’t know about you, but I really do admire Alex’s reflective capacity and that his automatic approach to thinking about men’s issues is with compassion, which seems to always be at the forefront of his inquiry and curiosity. On that basis, it was a real honour to speak to him and I hope you enjoyed it, too. And I would very much enjoy picking his brain a little bit further on things, because something we did not get to thinking about was future men. The future generation of boys and young men who are growing up I what feels like a bit of a culture shift in terms of masculinity. I’ve recently listened to a podcast by Gemma Styles, the Good Influences podcast, who was having a discussion with Ben Hurst about toxic masculinity, and in his day job Ben Hurst works with boys and young men (I think) to think about gender roles. So, he might also be a good guest to have on. Having said that, I would recommend listening to that episode as it’s a good’un!

So, that’s it for this episode. If you enjoyed what you heard, please do subscribe and rate this podcast on whatever platform you are listening. Rating and leaving comments really does help with giving other potential listeners an idea of how good (or bad) my show is. Also, spread the work on social media and tag me in that shit. It is always humbling to know that you lot are recommending me. And, if your account isn’t private, I will always (usually) say hi. So, any feedback of that kind would be greatly appreciated. As always, you can find me on Instagram and Twitter; you can also get a hold of Alex on his Instagram account. Let us know what you thought, or just come say hi. Until next time – have a good day! Or not. Whatever, no pressure.

Resources

* “Time to Talk: How Men Think about Love, Belonging, and Connection” – Alex Holmes

* “The Will to Change” & “All About Love” – bell hooks

* “Daring Greatly” - Brené Browne

* “A History of Masculinity: From Patriarchy to Gender Justice” – Ivan Jablonka

* “Humankind” – Rutger Bregman

* “Ben Hurst on Toxic Masculinity” - “Good Influences Podcast” with Gemma Styles

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hello and welcome to the Nice-ish Ramblings Podcast with me the Nice-ish Psychologist. And today, for the first time I am not alone. How lucky are you? At long last you don’t have to contend with just me and my bullshit. Today I have a guest: the ever thoughtful, calm, and compassionate Alex Holmes. I won’t say too much about who he is as he introduces himself later in the episode; but this episode is essentially what I envisioned when I used the word “ramblings” in the title. We were meant to have an hour-long chat, and it ended up being closer to two hours, purely because we really got stuck into the conversation and it went where it went despite having a structure. As a result, I have cut this chat with Alex into two parts, with this episode being the first of the two.

Without giving too much away Alex and I take a very existential look at masculinity and ask some very big “why” questions that will hopefully start to unpick the rigid nature of how we currently understand masculinity and femininity. I will release the second half in the next episode.

Just to say, I have listened back to this and the only issue with me not writing a podcast script is that I am nowhere near as coherent as I like to be. There are times when I use one word when I mean another word – this is literally my life. Coupled with that, not only is Alex for more eloquent, he also has a much better microphone than I do, so there are some parts where the sound quality from my side gets a little sketchy – I’ll look into buying a better microphone. But anyway, enough bullshit from me - for now please enjoy part one of my chat with Mr Alex Holmes.

I am still working on the transcript for this – it will be up in the next few days, thank you for your patience.

And there you have it. Part one of my and Alex’s discussion on the future of masculinity. Like I said at the beginning of the episode it was a very existential chat, which hopefully provided some food for thought about the current conceptualisation of masculinity and some of its flaws. Hopefully it has also given some insights into how we can perhaps move forward in rethinking what it means to be a man in today’s modern age, and how we can start to challenge the norms surrounding what we have always been told we have to do and how we have to be.

This discussion is not the be all and end all of these kinds of discussions – there are definitely things that Alex and I did not touch on or did not cover enough or at all – it is also possible that we have missed the mark on some things. And I know Alex won’t mind me saying, but if you want to get in touch with either of us to share your thoughts on what you have heard today, please do. Alex is generally active on Instagram, his handle being @byalexholmes. And although we did not focus on it too much in this episode (it forms part of our larger discussion in the next half of the chat) you can check out Alex’s book, “Time to Talk: How Men Think about Love, Belonging and Connection”. I have recently read it and found it really insightful. You can also get hold of me on Instagram, just search for The Nice-ish Psychologist. I’m also on Twitter, although only God knows why.

Thanks for listening, and if you liked what you heard, please like, share or subscribe wherever you get your podcast. And make sure you tune in for part two of this chat, which I will release…at some point soon(ish).

As always, have a good day, or not, whatever, no pressure.

Further Reading

* Is Masculinity Toxic – Andrew Smiler

* The Way of the Superior Man – David Deida

* The History of Masculinity: From Patriarchy to Gender Justice – Ivan Jablonka

* Time to Talk: How Men Think about Love, Belonging and Connection – Alex Holmes

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hello and welcome to this episode of The Nice-ish Ramblings Podcast with me, the Nice-ish Psychologist. Today’s episode is the second in a three-part series looking at toxic masculinity. In the previous episode we looked at the term “toxic masculinity” and examined (somewhat succinctly I would like to think, however you may hold different views of this) what masculinity is, what it means, and how this then related to the idea of toxic masculinity; with the primary focus being on the controversy and push-back that exists around the term. Ultimately, the main theme of the episode was me wondering what we would call toxic masculinity if, because we don’t like the term, we didn’t call it toxic masculinity anymore.

If you are joining the podcast at this juncture and you are curious to know what the conclusion was, or you just haven’t the foggiest clue of what I’m chatting about, please do go back to episode two and have a listen. This episode is likely to make more sense if you do.

If however, you are a die-hard fan (as die hard a fan as someone can be with a podcast that is only three episodes in) and you are already up to speed with all things toxic masculinity related, then today’s episode is going to focus more on the harm that toxic masculinity can create – and by harm, I don’t mean the harm caused to those offended by the term, or who think that the term is having a negative impact on men. I have my own views on that – mostly that I think it is ever so slightly a bunch of bullshit – but that is my own personal view, and I am aware that there are others out there who think that the term itself is having a direct impact on men and the way men view themselves.

My argument, as is laid out in the previous episode, is that this impact on men (if there is one) likely stems from a gross misunderstanding of the term, which it why I dedicated time in the previous episode to unpacking it as best I could. Just to clarify, I am not unsympathetic to the idea that some people think that the term “toxic masculinity” is potentially impacting men’s views of themselves – what I am saying is that there is no definitive proof that this is happening – and by proof I don’t necessarily mean experimental clinical trials or empirical research or anything like that because (as I will mention shortly) “toxic masculinity” is hard to conceptualise properly for experimental and research purposes. What I mean is that I am not sure how the term as it is meant to be understood would have a negative impact. But if there is a negative impact, it’s my view that it stems from a misconception about what the concept of “toxic masculinity” is actually trying to highlight in terms of issues around our current, socially agreed ideas of manhood. Because online I am familiar with a rhetoric that “toxic masculinity” labels men as bad and locates “badness” within men – which is not the purpose of the conceptualisation of toxic masculinity – but rather it is a commentary on society and the culture of manhood which forces or coerces of justifies men acting in certain harmful ways.

Anyway, I am getting into territory covered in the previous episode – so, go check that out if you’re interested. And despite being a sceptic about this supposed negative impact the term could be having on men I like to think I have somewhat of an open mind and will happily look at some good research (or just sound logic) that proves me wrong if that ever comes along.

But for now, the harm caused by toxic masculinity I am going to focus on is related to the harm inflicted upon groups and individuals by those who embody and live by the traits that constitute toxic masculinity; that being traits like: endorsing beliefs about the benefits of and the use of violence; homophobia; sexism; misogyny; domination and bullying; and suppression of emotion.

Who does toxic masculinity harm?

So then, who does toxic masculinity harm and how? Before we get into this I would like to make some caveats. This is all theoretical – and by theoretical I don’t mean that the harm being caused is only happening “in theory”. What I mean is that, as discussed in the last episode, the definitions and actions that make up toxic masculinity are not clear cut (even though I tried to clarify it as much as I could). Therefore, if something is hard to define, it is hard to operationalise and then test or conduct research on. As in, it is not possible to make any definitive, empirically based conclusions about the about the harm of toxic masculinity because it is hard to directly and empirically measure the impact of toxic masculinity due to the issues in defining it. But what you can do is draw correlational links. But correlation is not causation, I hear you cry, and well done if you did. Firstly, most research in psychology is usually correlational anyway (someone please factcheck me on that if you want) – in that there is either a weak or strong association between two variables, but that causality can never be 100% determined due to the possibility of extraneous (i.e. unknown) variables that could impact on the outcome of an experiment. And so, you would be right – correlation is not causation – but since we seemingly can’t seem to agree on how to define and therefore operationalise toxic masculinity, because toxic masculinity is based on gender norms for men that have just evolved over time and just are what they are, correlation, hypothesis, and logic are the best things we have to work with at the moment. So, that’s what we we’re going to do. Obviously, I haven’t just sucked these harmful impacts out of thin air; I have read some books and articles to shape this episode and will reference them where relevant; but just know that none of what I talk about is something that has been like “proven” by science or whatever. Again, the usual caveat exists – I am not an expert. I have just read some stuff which I thought would be worth sharing. As always, please look further into anything I say in this or any of my podcasts to increase and expand your own understanding of the issues discussed.

Women

The first group of people that toxic masculinity impacts is possibly one of the more obvious ones, and that’s women. I am not female, nor do I identify as a woman, therefore I have not experienced any of the things discussed in this section as a woman. This section is representative of how I understand toxic masculinities’ influence and its impact on women. If I get anything wrong, it stems from my lack of experience (and possibly erroneous interpretation of research) in this area and is not meant to offend or misrepresent women’s experiences. One of the things I would like to do later on in the development of this podcast is to have guests, and I would love to have a guest on this podcast to discuss this subject in more depth. But until then, this is what I have to offer, and I hope I do it justice.

With regards to women and toxic masculinity, you are more often than not likely to come across discussions of toxic masculinity within the context of violence against women, and usually revolve around discussions of sexism and misogyny. Sexism, in case you don’t know, is discrimination against a person based on their gender – so technically it can go both ways (which is often the argument of most Men’s Rights Activist). But while sexism can technically be perpetrated against both genders, it is typically and more pervasively perpetrated against women. From what I have come to understand about masculinity and the nuanced differences between hegemonic masculinity and toxic masculinity (if you would like to know what these nuances are, listen to the episode before this one), sexism has developed as a consequence of the patriarchal nature of our current, hegemonic form of masculinity, the culture of the Man Box. In their paper, “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept”, Connell and Messerschmidt write that hegemonic masculinity (which is basically the current most celebrated and honoured form of masculinity at any point in time, culture, or context) exists solely in its position to oppress or dominate femininity. That being women.

Masculinity has developed over time, and somewhere along the way (sometime in the 17th century I believe) women and femininity came to be seen as lesser than men and masculinity. I am no gender historian, and I am sure there is plenty of gender studies research that highlights when and how this came about, but that is beyond the scope of what I want to discuss today; but it is worth noting that Connell’s theory of hegemonic masculinity states that past and current forms of masculinity have existed in order to subordinate femininity and “celebrate” notions of, I guess what you might call patriarchal masculinity.

Misogyny, however, is where I think notions of toxic masculinity come into play more specifically. In the previous episode, one of the important distinctions between hegemonic masculinity and toxic masculinity was that hegemonic masculinity, or the Man Box culture of masculinity, are the rules for manhood; while toxic masculinity is the harmful and unhelpful ways in which men interpret those rules which then shape their beliefs, attitudes, and actions. In part one of this series, I went through the rules of the Man Box; and the rules of the Man Box that relate to women are “real men are sexually dominant”; “real men have control over women”; “real men are providers and never care givers”. You can see how these rules lay the foundation for some men acting in some pretty shitty ways.

Misogyny, as defined by the trusty starter reference, Wikipedia, “is hatred or contempt for women. It is a form of sexism used to keep women at a lower social status than men, thus maintaining the societal roles of patriarchy”. The Wikipedia definition was taken from the book “Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny” by Kate Mann, which I have not read yet, but have seen around and is on my to-be-read list.

How is misogyny different from normal sexism, though, you might be wondering? About a year ago I discovered that sexism is best thought of as ambivalent; as in there are two contrasting ways of thinking about sexism, specifically sexism towards women. The concept of ambivalent sexism was first proposed by Paul Glick and Susan Fiske in the 1990s. The two contrasting forms of sexism that exist are: benevolent sexism and hostile sexism. Benevolent sexism is best thought of as “a set of attitudes toward or beliefs about women that categorize [sic] them as fair, innocent, caring, pure, and fragile. Rather than being overtly misogynistic, these attitudes are often characterized [sic] by a desire to protect and preserve women”.

On the other hand, hostile sexism is “most often associated with negative prejudice against and hostile views of women that are rooted in the belief that women are inferior to men.” These definitions are taken from what I think are three journal or editorial commentaries that are sort of just clumped together on one PDF, which I will include in this episode’s references. But I am going to just read a few paragraphs from the commentary on hostile sexism, written by Tay Hack:

“Hostile sexism also comprises beliefs that women do not belong in the workplace and are too sensitive and emotional to be in high-status positions. A hostile sexist might believe that women who do enter the workforce will likely make excuses for their own incompetence by complaining that they are victims of discrimination. Hostile sexists also perceive women as weak and dependent and not able to independently handle life situations; therefore, men need to be the ones in control. As such, women should be grateful for everything men do for them, and they should submissively accept their prescribed female gender role. Such hostile sexist beliefs incorporate the idea that a woman’s place is in the home and that women should be the ones to cook, clean, and take care of the children.”

Another quote from Hack reads, “Another notion underlying hostile sexism is the idea that women use their feminine wiles to gain special favors [sic] from men. In this view, women use sex to tempt and manipulate men in order to achieve power over them. Women are perceived as ‘whiny teases’ who want to control men by using their sexuality. For instance, hostile sexists believe that women enjoy leading men on but whenever men respond by showing interest, women delight in shutting them down and refusing their advances. Furthermore, hostile sexist views include the perception that once in a relationship women will continue their attempts to control men by putting them on a ‘tight leash’.”

If you are not familiar with incels and Pick-Up Artistry, this last quote is quite literally the underlying beliefs of those two sectors of what is known as the “manosphere”. However, discussions around the manosphere and incels and Men’s Rights Activism is something I am saving for another day, so I won’t go into it here. If I have piqued your interest, though, do read “Men Who Hate Women” by Laura Bates. It’s grim, shocking, and disturbing, but it is equally fascinating and a hugely important book in my view.

The key difference, then, between misogyny/hostile sexism and, I guess you would call it “general”/benevolent sexism is the hatred or contempt for women, which could be argued fuel and are further fuelled by toxic beliefs about women in an unhelpful, unhealthy vicious cycle. But let me be clear, I am by no means saying that the beliefs endorsed in benevolent sexism are great, after all they still position women as weaker and in need of being “looked after” by men, which is still bullshit. But they are not necessarily fuelled by the strong contempt held within hostile and misogynistic beliefs; and it is this hatred and contempt, or general disregard for seeing women as worthwhile individuals and valued human beings that likely fuels toxic masculine behaviours that then primarily drives violence against women. Be it physical violence and psychological abuse in the instances of domestic abuse, intimate partner violence, murder and femicide, or sexual violence.

As with everything, behaviours occur on a spectrum; some behaviours can be more covert or implicit, while some are more obvious and overt. In this way, misogyny and hostile sexism does not necessarily result in overt and direct aggression towards women. But what misogyny does and has created, and continually contributes to, is the perpetuation of rape culture. 11th Principle Consent, a non-profit organisation that aims to increase awareness and education around consent, developed an infographic called the Rape Culture Pyramid (see the Further Reading section in the show notes to see the pyramid). The pyramid highlights that rape culture – “a society or environment whose prevailing social attitudes have the effect of normalizing or trivializing sexual assault and abuse” – is built on the foundation of men engaging in low levels of misogynistic behaviours that normalise sexual aggression towards women, which only serve to then justify other men engaging in more and more prolific and harmful behaviours, which then justify even further harmful behaviours and so on and so on. For example, the pyramid suggests that rape culture kind of begins with the tolerance and acceptance of sexist attitudes, rape jokes, and locker room banter. And that this tolerance then permits the normalisation and tolerance of catcalling, unwanted non-sexual touching, and stalking, the tolerance of which then permits and normalises flashing and exposing, unsolicited nude pictures, and so on and so forth, which then at the very extreme end, in some men’s minds, justifies and normalises more harmful sexual violence such as abuse, the use of drugging, and rape.

But it is not just misogynistic beliefs that perpetuates rape culture because there are many men out there who do not hold such openly hostile sexist views about women. In fact, I would argue that if most men hold sexist views of any kind, they are more likely to hold benevolent sexist views; those that view women as fragile and in need of protecting – I guess most men are more likely to think of themselves and chivalrous White Knights than anything else.

So, then if hostile and misogynistic views aren’t held by the majority of men, why does a pervasive rape culture still exist? Why haven’t the men who don’t hold these hostile sexist views done anything about it? The answer to this is both simple and disheartening. A culture that normalises aggression and violence towards women, specifically sexual violence exists because of other men’s silence on the issue. As Mark Green puts it in his book, “The Little #MeToo Handbook for Men”: “Men’s overwhelming tendency to remain silent in the face of the daily denigration of women, supports the continuing normalization [sic] of sexual harassment and violence against girls and women”. He also goes on to write:

“So, let’s be clear. No one is collectively calling all men rapists. What we’re saying is millions of men are choosing to remain silent about the abusive behavior [sic] we often witness, and this allows for a culture that puts women in danger. What’s more, we aren’t even fully conscious of why we chose to remain silent. Man Box culture contributes to the normalization [sic] of sexual violence when it encourages men to denigrate women as part of our performance of masculinity. And even though millions of us don’t agree with this behavior [sic], we are conditioned to avoid conflict with other men when they do this. This is because the men who openly degrade women are primed to attack us as well. They are the alpha bullies of Man Box culture, and the first rule of avoiding them is to avoid any defense [sic] of women.”

Mark Green touches on something at the end of that quote which is also quite important to how the Man Box and toxic masculinity impacts on men – I’ll explore it further in the episode, but it is worth touching on now in its relation to men’s silence against male violence towards women. Mark Green notes that men are conditioned to avoid conflict with other men in relation to their behaviour towards women, which is something he notes happens over time and occurs as boys and girls are socialised as different. We are told that having girls as friends makes us “sissies” or “wimps” or even “gay”, apparently. And so even though we might not hold hostile views of women, we are taught from very early on, through societal norms, but also through what can easily be called bullying – either casual bullying in the form of “banter” by our friends and family, or outright psychological and physical bullying – that to defend a woman or girl is a transgression against the rules of the Man Box, and we are liable to be swiftly policed back into line. So much so, that we start to potentially internally police ourselves – we tell ourselves not to get involved. It’s not going to make a difference anyway. At least we’re not the ones being a sexist prick. But that doesn’t help victims. It might make us feel good and it might ease our own conscience that we’re not “that guy” – but not being “that guy” and letting “that guy” get away with whatever he’s doing is, I am sure some would argue and certainly I would argue, just as bad.

I will end this section with one more quote from the book, which, if you have followed me for the last few months or have listened to my previous podcast, you will know I recommend time and time again. But for good reason. Again, Mark Green writes (and this following part is based on US statistics, but the point he makes is still noteworthy):

“Imagine ten women you know personally. Statistically, two of them are likely to be rape survivors. Which two? We don’t know, do we? Now imagine your child’s or any child’s classroom. Picture any ten of those little girls. Which two of them will be rape survivors? Are we there, yet? Are we feeling a little sick? Because this is the place men need to get to on the question of [the] #MeToo [movement]. If men want to really and truly help, the central challenge we must collectively address is how we are trained from an early age to normalize [sic] a whole range of ‘lesser’ acts of sexual harassment and abuse against girls and women.”

Men

The next section of those harmed by toxic masculinity focuses on men; but this is divided into two parts because there is nuance to how men are affected, because hegemonic masculinity, or the Man Box culture, has rules that only some men can achieve; but also differentiates between hierarchies of masculinity. Therefore, the first section will focus on men in general and how the rules of our current Man Box culture impact most men negatively through toxic masculine behaviours; while the second section will focus on how toxic masculinity affects men who fall into certain marginalised and oppressed populations, specifically the LGBTQ community and men of colour or of certain classes.

As noted earlier, the impact of toxic masculinity is most often considered within discussions about aggression and violence towards women; far less discussed and often overlooked is the impact that hegemonic and toxic masculinity has on men. Some of this section is based on bits I have read, but other bits are anecdotal and relate to either my personal experience or my experience as a clinician through discussions I have had with men about their life’s difficulties, and how these difficulties have been influenced by ideas of what it means to be a man. I am also aware that what I might say and how I think about things comes through a very White, Eurocentric lens. I can’t help that, but what I have tried to do is think about things as broadly as I can, while adding as much nuance as possible without necessarily homing in on specific areas too much. So, I will speak in generalities, so some of what I say might apply to most men listening (or to any men you might know if you don’t identify as a man), but some of it might not. Take what you will from this, but also use what doesn’t apply to you to reflect on how these effects of toxic masculinity might affect men you know.

So, another rule from the Man Box, but one that impacts men, is that “real men don’t show emotions”; and in the book, “Is Masculinity Toxic?”, Andrew Smiler writes: “Masculine norms discourage men from expressing or examining their feelings in depth, and instead encourage men to ‘have a stiff upper lip’ and ‘play through the pain’. This results in many men grappling alone with a problem they are unable to solve.” Pretty much from a young age, boys are told that they don’t cry – “big boys don’t cry” more specifically – and that we are meant to be “strong and tough”, which is another rule of the Man Box.

We then learn to suppress our emotions. Not only that, but due to the way that boys and girls are socialised, girls are encouraged to be more emotionally attuned, which is based on the idea that women are supposedly biologically more nurturing and empathic than boys; and that boys and men are more “doers” and “fixers” than “carers” and “feelers”. Research suggests, however, that (and here I quote from a paper called “Brain Development and Physical Aggression” by Lise Eliot) “the fact that prepubescent boys across diverse cultures act in nurturing ways toward younger children shows that males’ potential for empathy and caregiving is as ‘innate’ as their potential for aggression.” We’ll come onto that bit about aggression in a little while; but what that quote highlights is that young boys can and do act in nurturing ways towards others. However, Mark Green writes that one of the things that Man Box culture does well is suppress boys’ and men’s relational capacities for empathy, which he puts is no accident. He further writes that: “it is the suppression of empathy that makes a culture of ruthless competition, bullying and codified inequality possible. It is in the absence of empathy that men fail to see women’s equality and many other social issues for what they are: simple and easily enacted moral imperatives.”

Empathy is our capacity to perspective take, to put ourselves in the shoes of others, to think about what things might be like for another person and helps us make social connections on a meaningful level, not just in a superficial sense. But if as boys we are taught that empathy – that feeling sorry for others, for being moved by the pain or enjoyment of another person – is not something we are supposed to do, or that it is “girly” to do it, then over time we shut it down. I don’t know the precise mechanisms of how this gets done, but it does shut down.

Along with the rule of “real men are physically strong and tough” that accompanies the rule of “real men don’t show their emotion” is another rule that “real men don’t ask for help”, which is obviously because, you know, “real men are physically strong and tough”. Also, how could we ever register that we might need help if we continually suppress or ignore any kind of emotional signals that alert us to the fact that we might not be okay.

There are statistics abound about how men have shorter life expectancies. Globally, men are more likely to die of cancer, have higher rates of heart disease, diabetes, things like that. And I think there has previously been a focus on the biological differences in men and women that could potentially explain these differences in health outcomes. But the more and more we are coming to understand that there is actually very little difference between men and women on a fundamentally biological basis, and that there is even an expansion into what we know as the sex binary, biology does not always account for these poor health outcomes. Obviously I am not talking about the fact that if your parents have poor cholesterol or have had any kind of illness; because if they did then there is a higher likelihood you will have bad cholesterol or develop whatever illness they have as that is passed down genetically – what I mean is that there are no fundamental biological differences between the sexes (other than in the development of reproductive organs and external physical attributes) to indicate that men should be dying younger.

More and more, thought is being given to how men are socialised – how, as noted earlier, for men to seek help is to be seen as weak. And God forbid you should want to make sure you are healthy and fit and try live longer – no, no, that shit is weak, bro. But it is not just disease that kills us. We men are also more likely to kill ourselves. Most statistics that are available for rates of male suicide put us at three- to four-times higher rates of completed suicide than women. And suicide is the combination of all three of these interlinked rules of the Man Box taking effect – we suppress and ignore our emotions, but we struggle with them when they show up, because they inevitably do. But because we want to be seen as tough, or rather, not to be seen as weak, and to give the illusion that we are OK, or because we don’t know how to say we are not OK because we aren’t sure anyone will listen, we don’t seek help.

According to the Mental Health Foundation website, only 36% of referrals to talking therapies are men; and this is not to say that talking therapies are what will stop men from killing themselves entirely, but it does highlight that men are not accessing the potential help available. Now, I don’t want to diminish the systemic and social barriers that exist for people to access talking therapies, or mental health support in general, and I am not saying that all men’s issues are going to be solved just by rocking up to therapy. The factors that influence a person’s decision to complete suicide are massively complex, and can range from job loss, to career pressure, relationship difficulties, substances use (which we’ll come onto in a second), socio-economic status, and lots of other things. But it seems that the idea of not looking weak, as well as not being able to recognise when we are struggling with our mental health, potentially adds another barrier to being able to ask for help.

But it works both ways, right? In order for someone to talk they must have some sense that someone else will listen. The Man Box and hegemonic masculinity tell men that they don’t show emotions, and therefore, others may then not react well, or know how to react if and when a man decides to open up. Choosing to open up and talk about shit that is going on takes courage and a certain amount of vulnerability, something that men will likely struggle with. So, if that happens men need to be listened to – not shunned or shamed or told to “man up” or “harden the fuck up”.

Having said that, according to a ten year follow-up study by the mental health charity, Mind, who looked into men’s mental health in 2009, it has been noted that in 2019 men are 10 percent more likely to look for information about their mental health online, 12 percent more likely to see their doctor, five percent more likely to talk to their family, four percent more likely to find a self-help book, and 11 percent more likely to find a therapist or counsellor. These aren’t huge shifts in a 10-year period, but it is an indication that perhaps men are more able to (for whatever reason) seek help for their mental health.

Another consequence of being told that men do not or should not feel emotions or that we should temper our emotional connection with others, is that we tend to not know what to do with our emotions when they arise. Because we have not necessarily been taught how to manage or deal with uncomfortable emotions like guilt, shame, sadness, and disgust, we get confused by them; they can become overwhelming, too much to handle. So, we find ways to deal with those feelings. Or rather to avoid dealing with them. Men are excellent avoiders of all things emotional.

One of the ways we do that is through “banter”; we make jokes, we put humorous spins on things, we make light of anything that remotely feels like it might be heavy or serious. Because if we’re laughing then we aren’t feeling uncomfortable, right? It’s the emotional equivalent of playing hot potato, and making jokes is metaphorically saying, “fuck, I don’t know what to do with this; here have it back but I’ve coated it in something funny”. Now, I am not trying to shit all over having a laugh with your mates. Laughter and laughing is a fantastic way to engage with your friend and family or loved ones. So, I am not saying that every single time someone has a laugh it’s avoidance of emotional discomfort; equally, I am not saying that brining levity to a serious situation can be a can’t be a good thing. Being irreverent about certain things and creating a humorous situation can be the emotional push someone needs to break out of a bit of a funk or feeling stuck about something. What I am trying to say though is that if you as a man or your male friends only ever joke about serious shit, then it means that you are potentially (or almost certainly) not able to cope with or manage that serious shit; but it might also give the message that serious shit it never to be openly discussed – and that means men are then required to hold onto their problems and distress on their own. And that is inversely very isolating, and emotionally and psychologically demanding. So, what we might do instead is drink our pain away!

Something else we do as men is we tend to use substances to cope. In the Adult Substance Misuse Treatment Statistics report for 2019 to 2020 published by Public Health England, men made up just over two-thirds of those accessing treatment for substances (including alcohol, opiates and non-opiates). Booze is not our friend, guys. Booze is a depressant – that is, it fucking bums us out. So, if we are already struggling with our emotions or mental health or stress or relationship issues, continuously drinking is not going to help us feel better. If anything, it is likely going to make us feel worse – and because we can’t talk about how we’re feeling and offloading some of that shit, we just end up drinking more. And around and around we go.

Ironically though, in the book “Is Masculinity Toxic?”, Andrew Smiler notes that one of the reasons that pubs became so popular with men was because it gave them opportunities to socialise outside of work. Which, if you listened to the first episode, was important because during the Industrial age of the 70s, men were actively discouraged from speaking to each other to make them more productive at work.

But it seems that one of the ways in which men connect with each other also happens to be one of the unhelpful ways that we deal with our shit. But I am aware that meeting your mates at the pub for a swift one is still pretty common practice – you know, as opposed to going for a mindful walk in nature or whatever, which might be less damaging to our health. Equally, I’m not demonising having a drink now and again – everything in moderation, including moderation, right? But I guess the issue comes in when alcohol or drug use becomes a way in which to get through the day; to numb whatever might be going on for us. That’s when it becomes an issue. It’s not even about thinking of it as an addiction – a big clue as to whether you might be reliant on the use of alcohol as a coping strategy is to think about if having a drink or a line of coke is an almost automatic response to feeling stress or emotional discomfort. Just something to think about, I guess.

Another consequence of all these problematic ways in which we men deal with our emotions is that we get angry. Because anger is a good way to discharge all the uncomfortable feelings we have. In the book “Is Masculinity Toxic”, it talks about how anger is an “emotional funnel system” which we can use to deal with the rest of our emotions that we don’t always know what to do with (mostly because we have not been taught as children how to deal with these emotions appropriately).

Anger is an interesting emotion – at its most basic level, it is the emotion we use to protect ourselves – it can mobilise us into action when we feel an injustice has been caused; it allows us let others know when something has upset us. But from what I can tell, the emotional funnel system of anger is not about this – it is about not knowing how to deal with stuff and then lashing out, either at the person who triggered the emotional discomfort, but sometimes also at others who had nothing to do with making you feel the emotional discomfort. In this way, anger is also what’s known as a secondary emotion – that is, it arrives almost immediately after an emotion we don’t like (on an unconscious level I suppose) – and here I am talking about things like shame and guilt. And we then respond with anger; usually aggressively or confrontationally.

I guess not many people realise that you can be angry but express it in a healthy and constructive way – it does not always have to be shouting, screaming, swearing. You can channel it in a way that seeks to resolve the issue in a more constructive way. I might do an episode on anger one day; it is a fascinating emotion (that’s right – only a psychologist would say an emotion is “fascinating” – moving on). The main point here is that for men, sometimes anger is not always about the transgressions of boundaries or values and letting someone know they have overstepped; but rather we use it because we are more familiar with expressing anger and less familiar with recognising and feeling other emotions that make us uncomfortable.

On a slightly less severe level, our difficulties with empathy as noted earlier means that men connect less with other men: we have a handful of friends that we usually relate to over things or activities (sport or exercise, films, drinking down the pub, things like that); and this is not to say we don’t have best friends or life-long male friends, because we do. But I guess what I mean is that we connect with our friends more over things that we “do” rather over things that have a more emotional meaning.

I’ll use myself as an example and perhaps other men listening might relate to this...or it might be something specific to my friends and me. But when the first lockdown hit and Zoom socialising was all the rage, friends of mine who I used to live with and who I have known for the better part of a decade, used to meet up on Zoom calls for like an hour; and every time we ended the call my partner would ask me how my friends were, and I would say “fine”. My partner would then ask what their lives are like (work, relationships, one of them was expecting their first child around that time), and I would be like “Oh, I don’t know about those things.” Exasperated, she’d ask me what I had just spent the last hour talking about, to which I would shrug my shoulders and say, “You know, movies and shit” (we’re mostly big film geeks!) And I said – and the irony of this kind of only hit me in the last few years – that we always say to each other that if there was ever anything important we needed to let each other know about, we would.

But now, I wonder if we would? And I also wonder sometimes how many hardships or stresses my friends have been through without me knowing, because I never asked – and I mean really asked, not in the “How’s life, you bellends?” kind of way. And this is what I mean – not that we can’t form friendships, but that foundations of what those friendships are built on might sometimes be someone more surface level; that we don’t necessarily think it is worth asking how someone else might be feeling, or what they might be experiencing is something that doesn’t necessarily feature immediately at the forefront of our minds as men. The model of those friendships then potentially translates into the lack of ability to be open about the shittier side of life more broadly. Cos if you can’t be open with your friends – your closest comrades, those who you choose to spend your time with – then it is unlikely you will be open to others in your life.

This impact of empathic suppression also means we connect less with women. It impacts on our abilities to form healthy and wholesome relationships with romantic partners. As an example, for a long time – a long time – I was so wary of talking about being in love. For years, as a way to seem cool I guess, or maybe somewhat edgy or who the fuck knows what, I often talked about the fact that I did not believe in love; and that instead of falling in love I believed rather that we find people who we can tolerate. I even said this kind of shit in the early years of dating my partner – so, you can imagine how fucking great I must have been making her feel at the time. You’ll be glad to know I have grown the fuck up and I don’t think this way anymore, but even as someone who considered themselves a nice guy and in touch with their “feminine side”, this was how shallow my engagement with emotional connection was. Furthermore, the suppression of empathy means we prioritise our own needs over the needs of others. It means we are not always the best at seeing things from other people’s perspectives. This is why men become “doers” and “fixers” – we tend to attend to the things that require less emotional or relational connection or consideration.

On a more severe level, our lack of empathy is possibly what contributes to our violence towards women and to each other. Lack of empathy has long been an area of risk assessment with violent offenders and often factors into treatment plans for rehabilitation, often with a focus on victim empathy, which focuses on affective empathy – how someone else might feel, emotionally. So, for example, how an offender’s victim might have felt at the time the offense was committed. There is some contention about whether victim empathy work should now be included in offender rehabilitation; as in, is it fair to ask someone to have empathy for their murder victim if the victim was abusive – seems somewhat unethical, but that is perhaps a discussion for another day. But increasing empathy is a key factor in offender rehabilitation, often focused instead on trying to help offenders increase their ability to perspective take and increase their cognitive empathy – so being more able to put themselves in someone’s else’s shoes and think about how their actions might impact someone else, bit like a ripple effect

Alongside this, and once more in line with the idea that “real men are tough and strong”, men are socialised to engage in more violent behaviour – hear how I phrased that. Men are socialised to engage in more violent behaviour. There has been a long standing, and I believe still fairly pervasive view, that boys and men are inherently more aggressive. The theories for this relate to evolutionary and biological determinism: that is, we evolved from cavemen, hunter-gathers, who used violence and aggression to survive and thrive, and essentially become top of the evolutionary food chain. And which is supposedly how have come to be the dominant species today. Additionally, there has also been a pervasive myth that men and women have typically gendered brains, that men have higher levels of testosterone, and bigger amygdalas (the area of the brain responsible for emotional processing). As mentioned in the previous episode on this topic, the books The Gendered Brain, Testosterone Rex, and Humankind are great resources that put to bed these notions. However, if you don’t have time to read all three of those books, the paper I cited earlier, “Brain Development and Physical Aggression” by Lise Eliot is a great paper to read on the subject. The take away message is that while there might be some slight displays of more boisterous behaviour seen in boys (like rough-and-tumble play) potentially influenced by prenatal testosterone (the research on this in humans is inconclusive – and here I quote from the paper again) “hormones can bias this developmental trajectory [in boys], but they do not, in and of themselves, fix brain circuits for life. To become chronically aggressive, one must have fighting partners and an environment that tolerates or even encourages such behavior [sic]. Such fighting, in turn, affects brain development in ways that likely facilitates aggression later in life.”

So, boys and men are not born inherently aggressive – we are pushed towards being that way through the long-held belief that to be a man we must be tough and strong, and one of the best ways to do this is to dominate. Dominate women and other genders, but also other men. There are many ways to dominate, for example, through intellect and skill in the workplace, educational institutions, socially, materialistically; but one of the easiest ways to dominate if all those things fail is through aggression and violence.

From the book “Is Masculinty Toxic?” Andrew Smiler writes, “violence provides a method of gaining status or respect, by literally beating one’s opponents and thus moving up the dominance hierarchy and potentially proving oneself to be the alpha male.”  He adds: “The acceptance that violence is an integral part of enacting power is a key reason men’s lives are shorter than those of women. Men kill men at notably higher rates via homicide and war; what could be a clearer indication of power than killing? In both cases, the vast majority of victims – and killers – are younger men, aged between 15 and 39. In the USA, for example, 75 to 80% of homicide victims each year are men.”

In the UK, according to the latest figures from the Office of National Statistics, the percentage of men killed by homicide between March 2019 and March 2020 was 73%. So, not only are men dying younger because we have difficulty in seeking medical and mental health support, but we are also literally just killing each other, too. Smiler further highlights how socialised pressure and need to dominate also influences the rape culture against women. He writes: “overpowering a partner to convince, or intimidate, them to have sex can also provide status because the man can then claim another sexual conquest and burnish his credential as promiscuous.” The societal pressure to be a man, which for some men can be measured by how many women they sleep with, can impact how women are viewed and objectified as notches in a bed post and nothing more; this further dehumanises women and increases the chances of some men committing acts of sexual violence against them.

That shit is fucked up, man.

Bullying is also something that men do to each other. I mentioned this earlier in the section of male violence against women; but it bares mentioning again here. Bullying seems to be a part of the fabric of being a man. Now, I am aware that bullying is not a gendered behaviour, and anecdotally I know women can bully each other, too (trolling on Mumsnet comes to mind) – which, thinking about it now, is something I would like to discuss with a guest one day – but once more, in his book, Mark Green talks about men’s “collective trauma”, which I found to be an interesting phrase – he writes: “Men are in crisis. We are collectively traumatised and often deeply isolated.”

And it got me wondering what he was talking about – so I read the book again and picked up that he talks about men being bullied, policed, kept in line through domination of one another and for the purposes of making sure we don’t transgress the rules of the Man Box. But more interestingly, I had never considered the bullying could be so pervasive so as to potentially have a traumatic impact on a whole collective of people. In principle I understood that persistent bullying can takes its toll on a person – I was bullied at school to some degree, and it has left some impressions to say the least – but had never quite envisioned that bullying could have such a collective traumatic impact. And this might not even be what Mark Green was on about, but I did do some research; and while I don’t want to get into it here too much because I would like to do an episode on this topic in and of itself, there is a very interesting paper called “Bullying Victimisation and Trauma”, published in 2021 by Thormod Idsoe and their crew. And basically, the paper details how bullying, which is primarily perpetrated by boys and men can have a long-lasting trauma impact that could meet the criteria for a complex PTSD presentation. Which is just fascinating; sorry – I find awful things that human being do to each other continually fascinating. Guess that’s why I’m Nice-ish, right? Anyway, bullying ties into this next section of the episode.

Marginalised and Oppressed Men

There is another collection of men who are affected differently by hegemonic and toxic masculinity: men who belong to marginalised or oppressed groups. So, initially I had planned for this section to be longer than it is, but I have decided to not delve into it as deeply as I wanted for several reasons. The first being that I am a white, cisgender, heterosexual male and I have no experience of being affected by toxic masculinity from the standpoint of being a Black or Asian or Aboriginal man, or a gay man, or a transgender man or transgender women (the reason I include both trans men and women is because the experiences of transition from either gender might have its own unique experiences of impact by toxic masculinity). “But you are not a woman, and you had no issue chatting about toxic masculinity and how it impacts women,” I hear you say. And you are right, I did; reason being is that there seems to have been more thought dedicated to examining and looking into the impact of toxic masculinity (or rather the behaviours associated with the concept of toxic masculinity to be more precise) on women than there has been on its impact on marginalised and oppressed groups of men.  I have had a look, and there is not all that much out there looking into it. Therefore, I do not feel I am able to do this section as much justice as I would like. As I have said throughout this episode, I would like to get guests on to talk about their experiences of toxic masculinity and speaking to a men from these population groups is something I am keen to do, too.

What I will comment on from an academic standpoint, though, is that Connell, who first put forward the idea of hegemonic masculinity, noted that alongside subordinating and dominating women, hegemonic masculinity also seeks to subordinate and dominate other lesser forms of masculinity, which are called (surprise, surprise) marginalised and subordinated masculinities. Marginalised masculinities, as defined in “Is Masculinity Toxic?”, “includes support for the hegemonic form [of masculinity] combined with the least ability or willingness to adhere to its norms, as well as the lowest level of cultural benefits for being male.”

Furthermore, marginalised masculinity is “enacted by men with the least ability or willingness to meet the hegemonic definition, but who still respect the masculinity hierarchy. This includes men from tolerated minority groups and lower-class men in low-level service positions. Nerds have long been the icon for this form of masculinity.”

Basically, what I can derive from this is that the rules of the Man Box were laid down by those men in a position to make the rules of what it means to be a man; which, as history dictates, has predominantly been white men with money. Therefore, they set the bar – and anyone else who is not white or not rich who wants to try and attain those levels of manhood or masculinity can try if they wanted but will likely not be successful. Therefore, it seems that racism and classism are the toxically masculine products of the Man Box.

Subordinate masculinities (and again I am quoting from “Is Masculinity Toxic?”): “have notably different definitions from the hegemonic form and are actively discouraged by the culture. Discouragement may take the form of social prohibitions or laws.” One of the final rules of the Man Box, then, is that “real men are heterosexual and hypermasculine”; as such, anyone who is not heterosexual or cisgender, is then considered to be subordinately masculine, and is therefore subjected to either homophobia or transphobia, two more toxic manifestations of The Man Box.

So then, to adhere fully to the ideals of hegemonic masculinity, one must be white, rich, heterosexual, and cisgender; be dominant over other men and especially other women and willing to use violence or aggression to assert and maintain your dominance. Along with this, you must be stoic and never show emotion, unless it’s anger. And you can never ask for help, because to ask for help is to be seen as weak. And to consistently adhere to the ideals of hegemonic masculinity you may need to engage in harmful, dangerous behaviours and endorse harmful, dangerous beliefs which include misogyny, racism, classism, homophobia and transphobia. This, is essentially as far as I can make sense of it, what toxic masculinity is and why it is so very harmful.

Well, that’s it. That’s my deep dive into the harmful effects of toxic masculinity. I hope I have managed to make some sense. I've really tried to capture as much nuance as possible within the time frame of this episode – but it is entirely possible this has been a solid shit show of non-sensical drivel.

In the next episode I am hoping to explore the other side of all of this; how we as men can work towards a new ideal of masculinity. Something which I am fully aware is being worked on by a number of men, but I will look at that a bit more next time. Try and bring some balance to what has felt like quite a heavy topic, but one that I hope you will agree requires some thought and critical analysis.

If you have enjoyed this episode (and I use the word “enjoy” lightly) please let me know. And if you really liked it, please subscribe, rate the show, and leave comments to let other potential listeners know how good (or shit) I am. And as always, you can find me on social media if you want to discuss anything further. On Instagram I am @the_nice_ish_psychologist, on Twitter I am @TheNiceishPsych. You can email me at theniceishpsych@gmail.com, or you can sign up to my blog page at Substack (just search “The Nice-ish Ramblings Podcast” and “Substack” on Google and I am sure I will pop up – otherwise it’s on my Linktree on my Instagram page).

Anyway, that’s enough bullshit from me. Go and enjoy the rest of your day. Or not. Whatever, no pressure.

Further Reading

“Is Masculinity Toxic?” by Andrew Smiler (2019)

“The Little #MeToo Handbook for Men”, by Mark Greene (2018)

“6 Harmful Effects of Toxic Masculinity” by Weiss (2016): https://www.bustle.com/articles/143644-6-harmful-effects-of-toxic-masculinity

“Ambivalent Sexism” (Grubbs); “Benevolent Sexism” (Good), “Hostile Sexism” (Hack): https://pages.nyu.edu/jackson/sex.and.gender/Readings/AmbivalentSexism-Sage17.pdf

Wikipedia – “Misogyny”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny

Wikipedia – “Sexism”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism

“Adult substance misuse treatment statistics 2019 to 2020: report”: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/substance-misuse-treatment-for-adults-statistics-2019-to-2020/adult-substance-misuse-treatment-statistics-2019-to-2020-report#people-in-treatment-substance-sex-age

“Homicide in England and Wales: year ending March 2020”: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/homicideinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2020#suspects-in-homicide-cases

“Get it Off Your Chest: Men’s Mental Health 10 Years On”: https://www.mind.org.uk/media/6771/get-it-off-your-chest_a4_final.pdf

“Bullying Victimisation and Trauma” by Idsoe, Vaillancourt Dyregrov, Hagen, Ogden and Nӕrde (2021).

11th Principle Consent Rape Culture Pyramid: https://www.11thprincipleconsent.org/consent-propaganda/rape-culture-pyramid/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today, I am going to be talking about something I have taken a remarkable interest in over the last year or so: toxic masculinity. If you follow me on Instagram, you will have seen that I have quite a lot to say about masculinity, particularly the concept of toxic masculinity. But the focus of I want to think about is more around the controversy surrounding the term. I won’t lie, I was – and still am – a bit overwhelmed by the topic as it’s not simply a case of talking about what toxic masculinity is and trying to just set the record straight, as I feel a large reason behind why there is such a controversy over the term stems from a misperception (or two) about what the term refers to.

Because of those misperceptions the information available about toxic masculinity is not necessarily clear cut and coherent. And so, unpacking the term requires working through a fair few different areas. I was originally going to cover everything in one episode, but in researching and writing this episode things just kept piling on and expanding. As a consequence, I have divided this discussion into two episodes, with this episode covering (as best I can) the areas of masculinity, toxic masculinity, highlighting some areas of contention about the term, and some thoughts about what we would call toxic masculinity if didn’t want to call it toxic masculinity anymore.

I feel like I need to highlight that I am absolutely not an expert in masculinity studies. I am very new to thinking about masculinity, and this interest has come about largely because of the work that I do within the field of Forensic Psychology – through my work I have become more aware of the rules of masculinity and how these play out in the offences of male clients I work with and also the impact of masculinity on the female clients I work, in that they have largely experienced abuse and trauma at the hands of men. And so I am very much interested in the interplay between masculinity, toxic masculinity, offending, and the impact on victims; and as part of this interest I have become quite fixed on trying to help unpick the specifics of toxic masculinity, which I noticed online was not so clear cut and as clearly understood as I thought the concept was. So, once again – this is my own exploration and musings about the concept of toxic masculinity, which I am inviting you to join me with (and if you choose to come along for the journey, that’s on you!)

As a starting point, it would probably make sense to try and understand what masculinity is versus what’s it is not. I think a lot of the confusion about toxic masculinity comes from a lack of clarity about what the fuck masculinity is, and perhaps the predominant idea that it is inherently biological and evolutionary. These biological and evolutionary notions of masculinity bring with them the idea that men think and behave differently to women because we have inherently male brains and that much of our behaviour (such as our drive to aggressively dominate, take risks, and be impulsive) is governed by our higher levels of testosterone, and that we are just evolutionarily primed for violence. However, more recently there has been research to dispel the ideas of gendered brains, that men (i.e. biological males) have much higher testosterone than women that governs our behaviours, or that we are inherently violent and aggressive.

There isn’t enough time in the world (or more specifically, this podcast – people have got shit to do, right?) to go through these points in any great depth, however, if you think I’m talking out my ass I would suggest reading “The Gendered Brain” by Gina Rippon,  “Testosterone Rex” by Cordelia Fine, and “Humankind” by Rutger Bregman – all three authors can explain things far better and in much greater detail than I can. The take home message, though, is this is: for a large part of recent history it has been thought that much of what makes a man a man is down to how our brains develop to make us think and act, with the addition of higher levels of testosterone that impact on our use of aggression, our tendencies to take bigger risks and act more impulsively; and that basically to be masculine is predominantly to be male. To be fair, this last part has some merit to it, but doesn’t answer the whole question.

To help clarify this, I am going to read an extract from an introduction to an online bibliography compiled and written by Michal Kimmel (who I think is somewhat of an expert in masculinity studies as his name pops up all over the fucking place) and Tristan Bridges (who I’ve only heard of once – soz Mr Bridges): “While biological ‘maleness’ varies very little, the roles, behaviors [sic], bodies, and identities that are thought of as ‘masculine’ vary enormously. This variation allows scholars to argue that masculinity is socially constructed. First, masculinity varies historically—what is thought of as masculine changes over time. Second, masculinity varies cross-culturally—conceptualizations of masculinity are culturally specific. Third, masculinity varies intra-psychically—what it means to be a man changes over the course of one’s life. Finally, masculinity varies contextually—even within a given society and time period, masculinity can mean different things to different people. Simply put, not all American or Nigerian or Chinese or Australian men are the same. More specifically, ‘being a man’ means something very different to a college-age, white, heterosexual boy living in Maine than it does to a middle-age, homosexual, Latino man living in San Francisco. Since masculinity varies so much, we cannot speak of ‘it’ as though it were a timeless essence common among all men. Rather, we must speak of ‘masculinities’ precisely because masculinity means different things to different people in different cultures and in different historical periods”.

And to quote from another source, this is from a paper entitled “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept” written by Connell and Messerschmidt in 2005, both of whom I believe are also pretty big hitters in the world of masculinity studies (and don’t worry, we will come on to hegemonic masculinity a little later): “Masculinity is not a fixed entity embedded in the body or personality traits of individuals. Masculinities are configurations of practice that are accomplished in social action and, therefore, can differ according to the gender relations in a particular social setting.”

Essentially, what these two quotes are saying is that while masculinity, or various forms of masculinity, may form part of a gender identity for men, masculinity is not necessarily something inherent within a male body. Just because you have a male body does not automatically mean you think or act in certain ways or believe certain things. These thoughts, acts, and beliefs develops within a man at particular time period in history, within a specific culture, and can vary across contexts. Additionally, masculinity plays out between the different genders, too.

Ok, so now that we (sort of) know what masculinity is, what about toxic masculinity, then? Where does the term come from and what does it mean? Despite what many might think, the phrase did not develop within the feminist movement as a critique of problematic masculine behaviour. According to an article written in 2019 and published in the Atlantic entitled, “The Problem with a Fight Against Toxic Masculinity”, the phrase was first coined around the 1980s/1990s by the mythopoetic men’s movement. Now, I can’t quite figure out what this movement is, but from what I can wrap my head around (and please, someone correct me if I’m wrong on this) it was (and maybe still is?) a spiritual men’s movement which developed in a response to second wave feminism that these mythopoetic men claimed was trying to feminise men – goddamned feminists always trying to make men more feminine – which, as a consequence of this feminisation was leading men to become more aggressive and frustrated due to them being denied the (and I’m quoting from the article here) “necessary rites and rituals to realise their true selves as men.” Sounds like these guys would happily overidentify with the Spartans in the film 300. Anyway, these mythopoetic men created spiritual wilderness retreats and workshops to rescue (again I quote) “deep warrior masculinity” from what they defined as toxic masculinity (i.e. the aggression and frustration arising from nasty feminists trying to feminise men).

Moving on from this bizarre reaction to second wave feminism, it seems the term “toxic masculinity” was first defined academically in 2005 by Terry Kupers, who – when trying to understand the barriers of why mentally unwell male offenders resisted psychotherapy – identified that toxic masculinity might be one such barrier; and defined toxic masculinity as “the constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia, and wanton violence.” Kupers further claimed that prisons brought out these toxic aspects of masculinity. He was criticised for seeming to claim that masculinity itself was toxic, which he denied but apparently admitted he could have made this clearer in his research. And pretty much since then there has been contested debate over the term and what it means.

In his definition of toxic masculinity, Kupers was working from a conceptualisation of masculinity initially developed by Raewyn Connell called hegemonic masculinity. Again, we’ll come to this in more detail shortly, but for this context, Connell was (I think) the first person to theorise that masculinity was not inherent, but could be shaped by class, race, culture, sexuality, and other factors. She was also the first to argue that certain traits of masculinity could be considered problematic because masculinity, specifically hegemonic masculinity, creates a social hierarchy between genders but also between men – of who could live up to certain ideals of masculinity (such as sexual potency and physical strength). But the insecurity and anxiety that arises with the efforts to attain and maintain this masculinity (and also failing to do this) had problematic consequences and often requires the use of force or dominance to regain control over one’s place in the masculine hierarchy.

As just noted, Connell always asserted that she did not think masculinity was something inherent or innate or fixed; however, academics such as Kupers and other since, including the modern media (and here I am mainly thinking about social media), have misinterpreted what Connell was trying to say, and have mistakenly latched onto this idea that masculinity is indeed fixed; perhaps for the reasons relating to historical notions of masculinity being linked to biology and evolution. Therefore, if some think that masculinity is fixed and unchangeable, and now there is this idea that masculinity is toxic, that then means men must be inherently toxic and come predisposed with these innate harmful traits and ways of being that are seemingly are unchangeable. This is where I think much of the pushback against the idea of toxic masculinity comes from.

In a blog post entitled “Talking about ‘Toxic Masculinity’” written in 2019, Randy Flood notes: “Much of the initial pushback to the idea of toxic masculinity comes from people who take offense to the phrase. Many interpret the words to mean something they don’t and immediately disengage from any useful dialogue. Here are some examples [and at this point I’m quoting some phrases that one might hear when trying to discuss toxic masculinity]:

* I hear you describe masculinity as ‘bad’ and ‘toxic’ and I can only conclude you are anti-male and that you see all men as bad and toxic.

* I hear you say that men need to be more feminine and I think you’re trying to emasculate men.

* I hear you say only toxic masculinity is a problem, and I say ‘what about toxic femininity?’

* I hear you wanting to eliminate masculinity and I say that will make boys weak, lazy, and fearful.”

And while I have not looked into this very much, and equally there does not seem to be any obvious research that points to this, anecdotally and from my experiences of social media there appears to be a kind of weaponization of the term from various sub-groups. On the one hand you have a sub-group of men who claim that the term was created by feminists to promote misandry – the hatred of men; and on the other hand, you have what appears to be a sub-group of women who, based on their experiences with men, perhaps understandably do think that men are toxic and do use the term “toxic masculinity” in a pejorative and blaming way. So, in online spaces when trying to discuss toxic masculinity it’s really hard to be like, “No that’s not what the toxic masculinity means and not how its supposed to be used,” when sometimes it is exactly how it is used. So, in these ways I can see how men would dislike the phrase. The consequence of this, however, is that this view of the term gives the sub-group of men who believe that society is fully against men greater opportunity to highlight how the term is sexist towards men, can supposedly cause harm to men and boys (and by this I mean that the term itself is harmful, not the specific traits of toxic masculinity), and use it to drive a men away from the overall aims of feminism and equality.

Something else that seems to have occurred is that there is the belief that toxic masculinity has been pathologized; by this I mean there is this idea that people think the term means that there is something inside men and boys that needs healing (or even detoxifying, maybe). Take for example the fact that the American Psychological Association released a document on how to therapeutically work with boys and men, highlighting that one of the areas that may need to be taken into consideration is the influence of what they call “traditional masculinity” – which they describe as being marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression – and how this impacts on the psychological wellbeing of men.

Personally, I think it’s great that the APA have put forward guidance that takes into account the impact of masculinity on me and boys (as noted earlier I try and think about masculinity in my work with my male clients; also, we’ll get into the impact of toxic masculinity on men in more detail in the second episode of this series) – but there has been some staunch criticism of the APA taking this stance. Jordan Peterson (who, by the way, I have not had enough time to form a solid opinion on yet – but I am working on that) noted that these APA guidelines were an “attack on masculinity”. While another group of UK based psychologists, who I won’t name as I don’t want to be called out for slander, seem to think that UK therapists are hell bent on blaming everything that men do and feel on their toxic masculinity. Almost as is they think therapists are diagnosing men with having toxic masculinity, like it’s a disease or mental illness that boys and men can be afflicted with. It all seems to have become very confused and seemingly blown all out of proportion.

“So,” you might be asking, “if this term seems to have lost it coherence and is being weaponised from all sides, surely we should come up with a different name? Call it something different.” And that is one option, sure and this is something that I have seen being debated and talked about in online spaces. Another reason I have become so interested in trying to clarify and continually discuss the accurate conceptualisation of toxic masculinity is because last year I saw an Instagram post by a pretty big well established men’s mental health charity stating they were refusing to use the term because of the harm it caused. And I was like, surely with your platform you are perfectly placed to set the record straight and educate the men who follow you about the what toxic masculinity actually is. They did not think that was a good idea. So, I was like “fuck it, fine, I’ll do it!” and here we are. Anyway.

But here is my question – what would we call it and how do we know that the same thing that has happened to the phrase “toxic masculinity” won’t just happen to the new term? If you Google the definition of toxic masculinity (and I invite you to do this now if you can – except if you’re driving – do not fucking Google anything if you’re driving) all current definitions I find of toxic masculinity make it quite clear that that the term relates to current aspects of masculinity that are harmful and nowhere – literally nowhere – do any definitions point to the fact that toxic masculinity frames men as bad or inherently toxic.

For example, the basic Google definition (you know, the one that pops up at the top of the page whenever you type “what does X mean” into the Google search bar) states toxic masculinity is “a set of attitudes and ways of behaving stereotypically associated with or expected of men, regarded as having a negative impact on men and on society as a whole”. The trusty starting point of all good research, Wikipedia (you laugh, but Wikipedia is usually where all my research starts) has this to say: “The concept of toxic masculinity is used in academic and media discussions of masculinity to refer to certain cultural norms that are associated with harm to society and men themselves. Traditional stereotypes of men as socially dominant, along with related traits such as misogyny and homophobia, can be considered ‘toxic’ due in part to their promotion of violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence. The socialization [sic] of boys in patriarchal societies often normalizes [sic]  violence, such as in the saying ‘boys will be boys’ about bullying and aggression.”

And as a final example, the number one hit on a Google search comes from VeryWellMind.com that goes on to say: “There are many definitions of ‘toxic masculinity’ that appear in research as well as pop culture. Some researchers have come to agree that toxic masculinity has three core components. Toughness, which involves is the notion that men should be physically strong, emotionally callous, and behaviourally aggressive. Anti-femininity; the idea that men should reject anything that is considered to be feminine, such as showing emotion or accepting help. And power: the assumption that men must work toward obtaining power and status (social and financial) so they can gain the respect of others.”

Yet, despite the fact that the very obvious, easily obtainable definitions of toxic masculinity don’t highlight that men are inherently toxic or dangerous or evil or anything like that, it is clear that there is still discomfort and unease with the term. So, for the sake of argument it makes sense to look at other phrases that might replace “toxic masculinity” as the catch all phrase to describe problematic behaviours and beliefs associated with masculinity.

For this section I’ll be consulting three resources: the paper written by Connell and Messerschmidt previously mentioned, “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept”; and two very short, very easily readable books. The first is called “Is Masculinity Toxic?”, written by Andrew Smiler; and the second is (and if you follow me on social media you will have heard me bang on about this book before, and for good reason – it’s great) “The Little #MeToo Handbook for Men”, written by Mark Greene. I am going to try my best to summarise what I have learned from these resources as coherently as I can – but if it all sounds a bit fucked and messed up, please do take some time to read these resources, they have really helped clarify things for me in my understanding of this issue (even though there is the possibility I might fuck this bit up!)

The first such phrase that I have seen suggested that might serve as a suitable replacement to toxic masculinity was mentioned earlier: hegemonic masculinity, proposed by Connell in the 1980s. “But what the fuck does hegemonic mean?” I hear you ask, and that my friends is a very good question – unless you are a walking thesaurus or have ever administered the Test of Pre-Morbid Functioning (that’s an inside joke for psychologists), it’s unlikely the definition of “hegemonic” or “hegemony” is just going to roll off your tongue. Therefore, going back to the old Google method of research, when you type in “what does hegemony mean” (and yes, I am pronouncing it correctly) it is defined as “leadership or dominance, especially by one state or social group over others”. So, basically, if something is “hegemonic” it is the dominant whatever.

So, Connell’s theory of hegemonic masculinity goes something like this: because masculinity is not fixed and changes over time, culture, context, etc, there are often dominant or prominent forms of masculinity at any given point in history, or within a culture, or context. This is what’s known as hegemonic masculinity. In the book, “Is Masculinity Toxic?”, Smiler points out that so far there have been three prominent forms of masculinity, and we are currently in the fourth.

Quoting from the book, a summary of the four forms of masculinity are as follows:

“The first model might be referred to as organic or natural masculinity, in which biological strengths dictated male and female behaviours and roles. In most pre-historic hunter-gatherer societies, the adult men concentrated on big game hunting as they were stronger and bigger, while women and pre-pubescent boys and girls did most of the gathering nearer to their kinship group and offspring. Although the roles and responsibilities were differentiated, there was no social hierarchy; these were egalitarian societies. The second model emerged during the late 17th century as part of the Enlightenment movement. In this model, masculinity also became associated with power, patriarchy and passion, with those conforming to this ideal assuming prime position in the social hierarchy. The 20th century saw the emergence of a third industrial model of masculinity. In this capitalist model, competition was added to the mix and passion was replaced by emotional stoicism. Although this remains the dominant model of masculinity today, during the past three decades it has been deconstructed and explored, resulting in the acceptance of multiple forms of masculinity and the idea that individuals can create their own contingent versions of masculinity.”

So then, each of these different forms of masculinity throughout history could be considered the hegemonic masculinity of its time, and those who adhered most closely to hegemonic masculine norms of the era were then seeing as being the most manly. There is a lot of discussion about hegemonic masculinity in relation to how it positions femininity and other subjugated and marginalised forms of masculinity as lesser, but that is quite complex and there isn’t really enough time to go into that in this episode; and I don’t want to muddy things anymore than they might already be.

But what I would say is that while the phrase hegemonic masculinity sort of sounds like toxic masculinity and in some ways it fits, it’s its not quite the same. In the article, “Understanding Toxic Masculinity & Hegemonic Masculinity Through the Simpsons”, Theo Markou writes “toxic masculinity describes the individual reactions to ideas about gender that prompt men and boys to behave in aggressive, abusive and sexist ways in an ongoing effort to feel like and be perceived by others as proper (i.e. cis-gendered, heterosexual and socially dominant) men.” In a nutshell, hegemonic masculinity outlines the rules for being a man, and toxic masculinity are the traits some men choose to endorse and the behaviours some men choose to enact that enable them to stick to the rules and attain those hegemonic ideals. For example, in my head this would be something like hegemonic masculinity emphasising power and dominance over others; however, some men could choose violence (physical or sexual) in order to assert their power, which would be an example of toxic masculinity. It’s not just any violence that is toxic – because boxing is violent, but it is sanctioned or acceptable violence. Personally, I would query the sensibility of beating the shit out of each other by punching one another in the face repeatedly and as hard as you can, but each to their own. Therefore, it is maybe not just any violence that is toxic, but rather a particular kind of violence. Having said that I would also argue that men needing to assert dominance and power over anyone is not necessarily healthy. Equally, these rules of power and dominance might develop into beliefs about women’s roles in relation to men and lead some men to endorse sexist and/or misogynistic beliefs about women.

These toxic traits appear to have also developed over time, too, and a large number of masculine ideals seem to have developed from the industrialised form of masculinity – that bit of Smiler’s book is actually really fascinating; it talks about how the drive within the capitalist society saw men made to work individually in factories, away from each other – literally each man was like two meters away from one another – so that they could not talk to each other and could focus solely on their jobs. Which then had an impact on the ways in which those men connected with each other; producing the stoicism and emotional disinhibition that is now seen as the hallmark of being a strong, independent man.

Additionally, what Connell goes onto say is that even those these current toxic traits might only be endorsed by a small proportion of men, they are still considered normative and in many ways aspirational because they are seen to be held by men in positions of power; or the men have seemingly come into positions of power because of adherence to these hegemonic norms; which then in a way demonstrates to other men that  in order to “do masculinity right” this is how you have to be. Bit like a vicious circle of dick-swinging. I will admit that hegemonic and toxic masculinity seem to be quite similar and there could be overlap – but I think the easiest way to think about it is that hegemonic masculinity lays out the general game plan for being a man, and then toxic masculinity is the way in which individual men go about trying to stick to those rules.

Another phrase that could be used instead of toxic masculinity is “the Man Box”, which to be fair I quite like. And to me it echoes a lot of what hegemonic masculinity is, but does so using a nice, easily digestible metaphor.

In the book, “Is Masculinity Toxic?” Smiler notes that the idea of the Man Box was first conceptualised in about in 1976, based on the industrialised version of masculinity and has four components (like the sides of a box): “no sissy stuff”; “be a big wheel”; “be a sturdy oak”; and “damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead”. It underwent a few iterations, but was made most prominent in a 2012 Ted Talk by Tony Porter, the founder of A Call to Men, and is currently defined as “the enforcement of a narrowly defined set of traditional rules for being a man”. These rules are that “real men”:

* don’t show their emotions;

* are heterosexual, hypermasculine, and sexually dominant;

* never ask for help;

* have control over women;

* are providers, never caregivers;

* are economically secure;

* physically and emotionally tough;

* are sports focused

And these rules, writes Mark Greene in the “The Little #MeToo Handbook for men”, “are enforced through shaming and bullying, as well as promises of rewards, the purpose of which is to force conformity to our dominant culture of masculinity.”

I like the Man Box description as it is a bit simpler to understand than hegemonic masculinity; because essentially the Man Box is our current hegemonic masculinity. We currently live in the Man Box. But while I like it, and while the Man Box neatly makes something as abstract as hegemonic masculinity a bit more tangible, if you didn’t know what the Man Box was, you would need to highlight that it’s about masculinity. You would need to explain that what you are talking about is our current climate of masculinity, which is dominance based, suppressive of emotional connection, and rewards displays of strength and control and stoicism. This then results in men believing certain things about manhood and masculinity and then acting in ways that are unhealthy and harmful. And it’s these acts or ways of “being a man” that are the toxic traits once more highlighted by the definitions of toxic masculinity.

So, in my view (and this might not be viewed by everyone), we may as well just call a spade a spade and talk about toxic masculinity which exists inside of the Man Box. This may be a very tiny sticking point, and I concede that of the other ways of talking about toxic masculinity, the Man Box is probably (if anyone gives a shit about my opinion) one of the better ones. But again, if you are going to talk about masculinity, it just makes sense to me to talk about masculinity, but maybe use the Man Box as a metaphorical description to highlight the rigidity and expectations of the current hegemonic masculinity.

So, I guess that is my main point really, the final crux at the end of this monologue: there is this current understanding that certain aspects of masculinity are unhelpful and harmful to society and the people in it, that form part of our current conceptualisation of masculinity and what it means to be a man, which we call toxic masculinity. But the phrase “toxic masculinity” gets people’s backs up; gets them defensive; suggests to them that there is something wrong with being a man, or that in some way masculinity it tainted and not good – all of which is never mentioned in the literature (that I can find anyway) other than when it is highlighted as being what toxic masculinity is not. There are a few options we could call it. There’s potentially “traditional masculinity”, possibly “industrial masculinity”, “hegemonic masculinity” (which we have highlighted doesn’t point to the actual beliefs and actions that are toxic as it were) and then the Man Box (which I understand to be a metaphorical conceptualisation of hegemonic masculinity, but then is not necessarily explicit highlighting it is focusing on masculinity per se).

But I suppose I would like to draw this to a conclusion by quoting from the blog piece written by Randy Flood: “Those of us comfortable using the term “toxic masculinity”—social scientists, for instance—need to address critics’ misinterpretation and provide a helpful, accurate counter-narrative.” And I guess this is why I bang on so much about toxic masculinity and why I question the point and purpose of finding a new phrase or term or way of talking about it. There is already a perfectly good, succinct, and accurate way of talking about problematic aspects of masculinity; we just need to somehow get the right definitions and conceptualisations out there to counteract all the misperceptions that exist. And hopefully I have gone some way in helping clarify that for some of you today. Obviously the choice at the end of the day is yours about what you say and how you speak and the language you choose to use.

In the next episode I will be focusing on who toxic masculinity harms, how we as men can work towards a more positive form of masculinity (and what they maybe looks like); and possibly, if I can find enough literature, I will talk about ways to figure out if you engage in toxic masculine behaviours. Thanks for taking the time to listen to this. As always, if you would like to get in touch and leave me feedback or further the discussion, you can find me on social media (@the_nice_ish_psychologist on Instagram and @theniceishpsych on Twitter) or you can email me at theniceishpsych@gmail.com, or leave me a comment on my Substack page at theniceishpsychologist.substack.com.

Resources:

* “Is Masculinity Toxic?” by Andrew Smiler (2019)

* “Oxford Bibliographies: Masculinity”, Kimmel & Bridges (2011,last reviewed in 2020) https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756384/obo-9780199756384-0033.xml

* “The Little #MeToo Handbook for Men”, by Mark Greene (2018)

* “Talking about ‘Toxic Masculinity’”, by Randy Flood (2019): https://menscenter.org/toxic-masculinity/

* Wikipedia – Toxic Masculinity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_masculinity

* “Comment on the APA Guidelines for the Treatment of Boys and Men”, by Jordan Peterson: https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/political-correctness/comment-on-the-apa-guidelines-for-the-treatment-of-boys-and-men/

* “What is Toxic Masculinity?” by Amy Moron (2020), Very Well Mind:

* https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-toxic-masculinity-5075107

* “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept”, R.W. Connell & J.W. Messerschmidt (2005)

* “Understanding Toxic Masculinity & Hegemonic Masculinity Through the Simpsons” by Theo Markou (2019): https://medium.com/@samopravda/understanding-toxic-masculinity-hegemonic-masculinity-through-the-simpsons-7e8dd95d1cc7

Music:

* “Ambient Corporate Music” by ZakharValaha (https://pixabay.com/music/search/dance/)

* “Unexpected” by David Bulla (NCS Release)

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Before I get stuck into that, if you’ve found this podcast through Instagram, then you probably know who I am. But – if by some chance this podcast of mine has become an overnight sensation (which let’s face it, it probably hasn’t) then it makes sense to introduce myself.  (If you already know who I am and don’t give a shit, you can skip ahead to the good stuff further along! I won’t be offended!)

The Nice-ish Psychologist is obviously not my name, and whether you want to believe it or not, I am actually a Clinical and Forensic Psychologist registered with the HCPC. In my day job I work in prison and in secure mental health care; and because of that it’s recommended that I practice what’s called “online safety”. For that reason I keep who I am online pretty enigmatic and mysterious. On Instagram I try and look at the world through the lenses afforded to me by my clinical and forensic training, and as part of that I have decided to do a podcast along similar lines.

I host this podcast on a website called Substack. The reason for this is because I can upload both audio and written content, which caters to those who prefer to either listen or to read things they want to learn about.

So, what we have here is a bit of a test of how this platform works. If you have followed me on Instagram before, you will know I briefly did a feature called “Voice Rambles”, where I basically did this, but in under 15 minutes, and have re-recorded one of the original “Voice Rambles” for this podcast (the one about cognitive dissonance, obviously).

Alongside the re-recording I have also transcribed this podcast for those who might want to want to read it on my Substack website instead. Some of you may have heard these musings about cognitive dissonance and men who say “not all men” before, and if you have I thank you for taking the time back then to listen to my bullshit, and I hope you don’t mind hearing it again. (Alternatively, you could just stop listening and go do something that’s not a waste of your time). But, if this is the first time you are hearing this I hope you find it interesting and I fucking hope I don’t bore you to tears.

Will this be funny? Probably not. Will it be entertaining? I guess that depends on what your definition of entertainment include. Will it be informative? I hope so, otherwise this has just been a fucking waste of your time and mine.

Before we get stuck in, though, I just need to make two caveats: everything I’m discussing here is merely hypothesis and a bit of a psychological formulation about something that I’ve been thinking about for a long time; based on the psychological principle of cognitive dissonance. I'm not diagnosing anyone. I’m not saying any of this is fact. It’s merely a stream of hypothetical consciousness about a subject that I’ve been wondering about for a while.

The second thing is that this podcast episode contains discussion of sexual violence against women. I don’t go into any great detail about any specific acts of sexual violence, but it is a topic of conversation that has the potential to be upsetting. So, if you aren’t in the best place to listen right now, look after yourself first and come back to this later. Equally, if this is not something you want to listen to at all, that makes perfect sense.

Cognitive dissonance and “not all men”. As I’ve said, the reason I’ve chosen to talk about this is because I’ve been curious about what makes some men say “not all men”. But I say some men because I recognise, as I’m sure many of you do, that it is in fact not all men who commit sexual offences or acts of sexual aggression towards women, and that there are actually men out there who are willing to do the work and to listen to women and to try and make society safer and reducing gendered violence against women. So, when I talk about men today, I’m specifically focusing on the men who basically respond to women’s experiences and fears of violence by saying “You can’t say that, it’s not all men”.

Now to my mind, I reckon there’s three kinds of “not all men” men.

The first kind are those whose interactions towards women on a day-to-day basis are probably so steeped in sexism and misogyny that they don’t actually know that anything that they’re doing is wrong; and it would never even register to them that they’re doing anything that would make women feel uncomfortable or threatened. It’s also quite likely that they are potentially the biggest perpetrators of everyday occurrences of sexual harassment and sexual assault.

The second kind of “not all men” men are probably those who have been respectful of women for all their life and have actually been quite aware of their behaviour and have strived to not make any women feel uncomfortable; and have wanted to treat women with dignity and respect. They may understandably be quite insulted by being - as what they see - as lumped with men who do commit acts of sexual aggression towards women. To which I say your sense of feeling insulted and the anger that may go with this is quite valid; but if you are angry about this then you should direct your anger towards the people who are dragging your sense of identity through the mud.

The third kind of “not all men” men that I want to talk about are the ones who may potentially be experiencing cognitive dissonance since the start of the  #metoo movement; and pretty much anytime the headlines have news about a woman who has been murder or raped at the hands of a man.  And then women have to then beg for their right to live in a world free from the threat of men and wanted to kill them or rape them. And so it’s these men that I'm going to be talking about specifically.

But before we get into that I thought I'd briefly talk about cognitive dissonance, which is a theory put forward by someone called Leon Festinger in 1957, and it relates to the idea that we can experience mental discomfort when we’re exposed to two conflicting pieces of information, beliefs, attitudes, and values. It usually happens when something we believe in is challenged by a new piece of information that contradicts how we’ve previously seen the world, or the way that we’ve previously acted. And this mental discomfort can usually make itself known through feelings of disgust, or shame, or guilt, anxiety and even anger. A quick example of this is smoking: so, when somebody who enjoys smoking has to then give up smoking for the health reasons - if they're diagnosed with cancer - or social reasons - like when the smoking ban came into pubs and clubs - this can cause dissonance. There’s a few different ways of resolving dissonance, but we'll get to that in a little bit.

“What the fuck does cognitive dissonance have to do with men who say, “Not all Men?” I hear you ask, and that is a valid question. I guess my theory - and again this is just my own theory, nothing more - my theory is that before the #metoo movement there were a lot of men who may have behaved towards women in a way that they were socialised to behave. So, typified as “laddish behaviour”, and I think you know what I mean when I say, “laddish behaviour”. And I think they acted this way because they didn’t think there was anything wrong with it because, why would they? Everyone else around them was behaving in this way and in fact they were probably encouraged by their friends, family, other male role models; and popularised and normalised in the media through, TV, film and music.

However, I guess over the last few years there has been a far greater understanding of what constitutes sexual assault and sexual harassment and harassment in general. I would argue that probably rape has been somewhat more understood and defined, but even the act of rape has been muddied by the pervasiveness of rape myths and the continued uncertainty around what constitutes clear and unambiguous consent. But I think before the #metoo movement sexual assault and sexual harassment were perhaps thought to be something that only sexual perverts or predators would do, and these acts were probably being committed by people who would also rape women.

But it’s fast, becoming more common knowledge that behaviours, even everyday behaviours such as wolf-whistling and catcalling, can fall under the categories of sexual assault and harassment. And I think it’s with this greater understanding of what now constitutes sexual harassment and assault that a lot of men who would never have considered themselves to be that type of person, to commit those type of acts, are now potentially having a mirror held up to their past behaviours and discovering that actually, maybe, once or twice or maybe quite frequently in the past, they may have acted in ways that made women feel uncomfortable or intimidated or even threatened. And it’s possible that they've actually sexually assaulted or have been quite consistent in sexually harassing women.

And this is where the dissonance comes in. Men who have previously seen themselves as normal men, doing normal things, have in fact potentially been committing lesser acts of sexual violence. I say lesser acts because I'm referring to the fact that sexual violence occurs on a continuum of severity. At the extreme end you have acts like rape, while maybe at the lower, less severe end you would have something like cat calling or wolf whistling. I'm not trying to diminish the impact of any of these lesser acts and how they make women feel; what I am saying is that the large majority of men are probably responsible for perpetrating acts on the lower of the sexual aggression spectrum.

But this kind of revelation can probably mess with how somebody sees themselves and potentially how they think others see them. And I wonder if it’s maybe how these men think other people see them which is the main issue here. And therefore, understandably, this brings with it a lot of guilt, shame, disgust and anger. And anger is where it gets interesting and where this potentially fits in with the “not all men” men who experience cognitive dissonance.

It’s my personal view that I think a lot of “not all men” men who experience cognitive dissonance feel angry. And I think they’re probably angry at women; that’s where they’re directing their anger at. This is likely because they almost see women as having pulled back this veil on their previous behaviours and are saying, “The way that you’ve acted in the past isn’t actually cool and we’re not happy with what you’ve been doing”. And that’s a nice way of saying it; I’m sure there’s a lot of women who have said it and would sat it a lot more directly and bluntly than that.

But whilst no woman is definitively saying that all these men are perverts and sexual predators, that’s possibly how they see themselves now: lumped in with the Weinsteins of the world. What they need to then do is to find a way in which to resolve the dissonance this new view of themselves has caused and achieve cognitive consistency; which is where how you see yourself and what you believe in is actually in line with how you actually act.

So, there’s three ways in which to alleviate the mental discomfort caused by cognitive dissonance. The first is by acquiring newer information that disputes the information that has caused the dissonance. So, one of the ways that I've noticed this happening is when “not all men” men will go to great lengths – great lengths – to dispute verified statistics that exist about violence and sexual violence against women. I had one guy who in the comments section of a post I made, where I put that one in five women in America reported either a complete or attempted rape, he told me that he knew approximately 20 women and not one of them had been raped. This just goes to show that he didn’t necessarily understand how to apply statistical data to the real world. But anyway, that's one of the ways that “not all men” men do it. Another way in which they would do this is by derailing the conversation, for example by saying “actually men are sexually assaulted too, so why are you just talking about sexual violence towards women?” And I guess that this is possibly one of the ways in which “not all men” men will reduce their cognitive dissonance by going “no, your facts aren’t right because this is how I see the world and it make me feel better about anything that I may have done in the past to possibly contribute towards this huge rate of sexual violence against women”.

The second way to balance out cognitive dissonance is by reducing the importance of the new dissonant information; and this is quite literally the embodiment of the statement of “not all men”. The phrase is designed to invalidate the fear that women have when they talk about being wary or fearful of men. “Not all men” is potentially a statement to make men feel better about their own transgressions; and if they can say that not all men are rapists and not all men are sexual assaulters and harassers then it’s possible that they can then count themselves in those numbers and thereby not have to face up to what they did, or just to pretend to the outside world that they didn’t do any of that, and they’ve never done anything to make a woman feel uncomfortable or intimidated or threatened.

Now, the third way of dealing with cognitive dissonance – and I would argue that this is potentially, around this particular issue – the one to go for is to change one’s behaviour or attitudes to align with the new information that’s created the dissonance. In simple terms, this is to just listen to when women are telling us makes them feel scared or uncomfortable and just simply stop doing that. Now it’s entirely possible that “not all men” men would have already stopped doing their behaviour and recognised that what they have been doing would be classed as harassment and assault, but are still out there saying “not all men” to try and displace the previously mentioned feelings of anger and guilt.

But taking the behavioural and attitudinal change one step further would entail that these cognitively dissonant men acknowledge that what they’ve done in the past was not ideal; to accept that actually, yes, they’ve made mistakes in the past and to understand that how they were acting was based on the information that they had at the time. But then acknowledging it, accepting it, and then moving forward to make changes and reparations. And reparations can come in so many forms: the Internet and social media is full of resources about how men can be better allies towards women and promote gender equality, so I'm not going bang on about that too much.

And I know I’ve made that sound really easy – to just acknowledge and to accept that one may have done some bad things in the past; I know that those things pose their own difficulties – but I guess coming to terms with what you have and then choosing to move forward in a different direction and act in a different way is surely much better than just continuing to shout “not all men”. And by doing so invalidating the lived experience of women who have experienced constant sexual violence and sexual aggression in numerous forms and varying degrees.

So, there you have it. That's my two pence worth on cognitive dissonance and why some men who, in discussions about women’s experiences of sexual violence and violence at the hands of men, will declare that it’s “not all men”. In summary, I think there are possibly three kinds of these men. Firstly, there’s the kinds of men whose views on women are so deeply entrenched in sexism they would be oblivious to anything that was even remotely inappropriate in their interactions with women. Secondly, there’s the kind of men who genuinely respect women and who have never done anything to make a women uncomfortable, but take umbrage at being lumped together with men who do commit acts of violence, sexual or otherwise. And finally, there are the men who, now that the understanding of what constitutes sexual violence and assault and harassment has broadened, try to ease any guilt they might have over past behaviour using strategies to balance their cognitive dissonance.

Well done for getting to the end. Unfortunately, there’s no prize other than my gratitude and to say thanks for listening. Hopefully you found it interesting and hopefully you’d want to share this with your friends, your family, and potentially other men who you think might benefit from listening to this podcast. And if you are a man, this wasn’t intended as a telling off; they were just some thoughts I had that might be helpful to think about and to share.

I would also say that as a man acting on previous information is understandable and I guess permissible in some way; and some of the things that you’ve done in the past might not be ideal, and that’s not great, either. But holding on to the guilt or defending against is, and not doing anything about it doesn’t actually do anything for anyone. If you are presented with new information and you are told that the way in which you acted was harmful, but you choose to do nothing about that, or you choose to carry on acting in the same way you previously have, then that actually makes you part of the problem.

Equally, if in your view you have never acted towards a women in a way that could have left her feeling uncomfortable but you choose to do nothing at all about any of this, if you choose to sit back and declare this has nothing to do with you, that also kind of makes you part of the problem. Because silence and doing nothing about a shitty situation is as bad as creating the shitty situation in the first instance.

So anyway, hopefully this has given you and others something to think about. As I said earlier, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this, and on the podcast in general. It was my first go at doing this, and it’s highly possible the production value is slightly lacking compared to other podcasts you have listened to; but as someone said earlier this week “you gotta start messy”. So, it’s possible this can only get better (maybe!). If you want to get in touch you can mainly find me on Instagram @the_nice_ish_psychologist, on Twitter @TheNiceishPsych, or you can even email me if you’re really fucking keen at theniceishpsych@gmail.com. I think that’s all from me for now. First podcast episode, completed it, mate.

Podcast music: “Background Uplifting & Upbeat Corporate (Long)”,  “Ambient Corporate Music” and “Piano Moment” by ZakharValaha (https://pixabay.com/music/search/dance/)

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.